USSR VS.USA

Quote:

"Where do I start with this nonsense"

Well how about here:

"The Soviets produced just over 3300 IS 1 and 2 tanks prior to the end of WW II. Where does the 5000 number come from?"

Well the IS tanks built was 3854 in total not 3300 and then you should add in KV1,KV2,KVIs and KV85. That would add a further 4710 to the heavy tanks available (in theory, less losses)

"A bit over 4000 IS series assault guns were produced in the same time period. The most common assault gun in Soviet service in 1945 was the SU 76 comprising well over 50% of those in service".

Hmm.. again SU 76= 12661
SU122= 1148
SU 85= 2050
SU100= 1675
SU152= 704
ISU122/152= 4075

Isn't that 12000 against 9000 (again less losses)


Quote:

"Army Group Center in July 1944 during Bagration where the Red Army with up to a 10 - 1 + advantage took well over 3 days just to break the German front and then still faced stout resistance once they managed to rout the initial defenses"

3 whole days, wow! Compared to the 2 MONTHS it took the Allies to break out of Normandy you
mean?

"The 1st Guards Tank Corps was equipped entirely with US tanks in 1945"

Total Russian AFV production was 113000.

Total US Sherman tanks sent as aid was 4000
Indeed these Shermans were vital to the Russian war effort!

"The most widely used "light" tank in Soviet use in 1945 was the British Valentine"

Russia got 1388 Canadian and 1300-2300 British built Valentines. 2600 to 3600 second rate (and obsolete by even the West's inferior tank standards)vehicles that were not of any real combat use.
The Russians built 15000 of their own light tanks up to 1943.

 

352. ID was a division of the the 21st "wave", raised in Winter 1943/44 with the 1926 born. Not even second rate. The Fallschirmjäger in 1944 were a scheme of the former "elite" troop.

In general, almost EVERY Division the Allies (no matter if West or East) were facing from 1943/44 onwards following were second, if not third rate, relatively compared to what the Russies were facing in summer 1941.

Very true.

Nice argumentation, but doesn't mean nothing: A division who isn't engaging the bulk of the enemy forces (like U.S. divisions between mid-1941 til 1943) has only a small chance of getting destroyed.

The Red Army as the sole killer of the German Army between 1941-1944 was the best life insurance for every British or American grunt. Between June 1941 and D-Day, the Russkies killed approx. 2 million Wehrmacht soldiers, including the creme de la creme of what the Reich could put into an uniform.

This are 2 million (plus wounded) less Krauts firing at the boys from Nebraska and Sussex.

To make it short, the Red Army had to fight her way through the German Army between 1941-45 to face a "fresh" U.S. Army who fought either on sideshows or what was left of the German Army between 1943-45.

Cheers,

 

Obviously you missed the part where Alexanderr lists those numbers as tanks in service in 1945. Even the numbers you give here show that his estimates are impossibly high. And, yes, in 1944 - 45 those lend-lease tanks were important. In Bagration for example, the 1st Guards was a leading element in the Russian breakthorough and later exploitation. As I stated, most of the SPG's were SU-76s. Where was this incorrect?
If such huge numbers were, in fact, available to the Soviets why were they not employed in their 1944 - 45 offensives where far more modest numbers are generally assigned to AFV available? Could it be that losses were quite heavy and in line with most German armored action accounts of combat on the East Front? I would suggest that that, in fact, is exactly the case. The Germans inflicted many times the AFV losses they themselves suffered on the Red Army. As a result, the Soviets had a mere fraction of the total production available for use in 1944 - 45.

 

Will someone be honest and admit that this "debate" is more about personal politics than history?

 

Quote:

"Could it be that losses were quite heavy and in line with most German armored action accounts of combat on the East Front"?

I would love a single (verified) account where these 'high'losses can be confirmed.

 

I don't know...why he should order a-bombs on Paris, Praha etc? Because Red Army Divisions are sitting there? Well, much better to a-bomb (or just threatening to a-bomb) "military targets" in Moscow, Odessa, Kiev, Minsk, Leningrad, Charkov instead. Or maybe Berlin, Chemnitz, Dresden if it needs to be.

I think you dismiss the strategic effect of nuclear military power a bit too much. The fact that the USSR fought the German Army without Western USSR (but with the "brain" Moscow) doesn't automatically mean that they could do it a second time again against a world power approx. three times bigger than Germany was - with Moscow, Kiev etc. having the exact same town's silhouette like Nagasaki.

If the U.S. was no match for Stalin, why the hell he didn't wiped them out of Europe in spring 1945?

And if a couple destroyed USSR cities doesn't mean anything, why the hell did Uncle Joe didn't bring the worker's paradise to Calais? Don't tell me that he is just such a peace-loving guy.


And, for the U.S. "cakewalk to Moscow"-fraction:

If the USSR was on her knees, why didn't the U.S.A. went to Uncle Joe in Aug. 1945 saying "Listen, we have this nice little new nasty here, so you better let them Poles, Czech, Hungarians do as they want, otherwise we might be forces to see how Moscow looks like after an A-bomb drop.". Instead they even withdraw from captured German territory to stick to the Teheran / Potsdam deals.

How strong teh USSR, the WP or NATO was during the Cold War 1950-1990 is completely irrelevant here, we're talking about 1945 and the Soviets were scrapping from the bottom of their manpower barrel at this time.

Cheers,

[ 09. January 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

That would be great. I agree completely with you. There are numerous posters here who, no doubt, could supply such accounts without me having to do so (making it more of a collective thing rather than me blathering on alone).

Quote:
Will someone be honest and admit that this "debate" is more about personal politics than history? The Historian[/QUOTE]

I thought (at least) that my assessment given above was a reasonable approximation from historical evidence (ie., That the Red Army might get as far as the Rhine then suffer reverses that end in a Soviet Union back on its own borders having suffered the depredations of strategic bombing and, a negotiated peace). In the end, the historical analysis is that Stalin was smart enough to see that he couldn't win outright a military victory against the West in 1945 - 47 and, the West was unwilling to invest the political and economic capital into a costly war against him at the same time.

 

I think at that time Rusia was more powerfull in the continent than the US. Rusian tanks were greater than US tanks, and had more experience in fight. To destroy a tiger you'll need 4 shermans or 2 T34/85.
The winner was without any doubt Russia.

 

Fortunely, there is no need to comment Mr. Gardner's "noncence" statements about Soviet tanks and German elite western divisions after M Kenny's and Andy W's relpies.
If anybody wants, I can enlist here numbers of produced , lost and remained Soviet tanks of 1943,44,45 years.
I just want to say that I see difference between "US" and "Allies". Yes, Lehr, 12 SS , Frundsberg,Hohenstaufen, etc were indeed efficient , but they were engaged in combats with British and Canadians ! And I really doubt that "Overlord" would be successful if tommies failed to stop and beat that divisions.
And well trained US divisions were stopped on "Omaha" by just a regiment of 352 division ! I don't mention about other divisions consisted of relatively old men, boys, french tanks, trucks, horses and Ost battalions, who eagerly surrendered using the first chance.
"Juno" was as bloody as "Omaha", but unlike stalled Americans, Canucks rushed through German positions in spite of terrible fire. Also don't forget that all Marx's counter-attacks were directed to British sectors. And the comparison btween well-trained "Screaming Eagles", "ALL American" and "Ox&Bucks" for example is obvious.
By the way, "Frunsberg" saw its final action on the East. And what about "Tottenkopf", "Grossdeutchland", "Das Riech", etc. ?
The statement about Soviet soldires ,who couldn't speak Russian really impressed me. I guess this was taken from Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle".
You should read about Russians from Russian books. I take most of information (figures for example)about Allies from Hustings, Ambrose, Keegan, Eisenhower, Bradley etc.
When I write about 607 divisions I mean that all KIA, MIA, wounded , POWs along with lost weapons and equipment could form 607 divisions.
And from Mr. Gardners words it seems that during 1944-1945 Allies lost just 8.000 men, and all of them were British Red devils !
I don't know about any NATO vs. OVD war conflict.Please don't compare Arabs with Russians and Jews with Americans.

[ 10. January 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]

 

A couple of words about Rhine and A-bomb and advancing speed.
Please remember, that Allied communications were as bad as Soviet (and don't forget about seatale ). In 1943 we crossed Dnipper, which is as difficult obstacle as Rhine. Hitler called Dnipper position "unpenetratable". And I imagine how B-17 and B-24 , covered with British Gloster Meteors, throw A-bombs on Soviet,and at the same time US front line .
GI quite rapidly ran from Germans in Ardennes. Germans had no numeric superiority ,fuel,air support, and the terrain was difficult for advance and good for defence.So what about Soviet army ?
But I again want to repeat that the result of the USSR-USA conflict would be bombed USSR and European cities ,the disaster of US Army in West Europe - a terrible draw.

In addition I want you to excuse me for my English.

[ 10. January 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]

 

To comments about the US Infantry retreating in the Ardennes, well, the Germans weren't exactly attacking experienced divisions there. They were mostly new recruits sitting in freezing weather confident the Germans didn't have the forces to attack them. The utter surprise the Germans had combined with the recruits inexperience, doesn't exactly give a good example of how a US soldier would normally act. However the US did manage to reform their line, and push the Germans back, eventually even further back.

If this is supposed to mean the US soldier could not stand up to an attack, they only retreated several miles into belgium, compare that to the Soviet retreat during Barborossa, where they had numerical superiority, they didn't fall back a few miles, they retreated all the way across European Russia, but I'm not going to say this should be used to show that the Soviet infantry couldn't fight. And the West had far better communications then the Soviets did, saying they were the same is ludicrous.

Now what is true, is that the Soviets by far had the more experienced and larger Army in Europe. But the West had manpower reserves, something the Soviets didn't enjoy, along with that the West had a nice big island the Soviets couldn't hope to touch (The Americas), where they are outproducing the Soviet homeland. The Soviets also have superior armor compared to the west, the T34 is better then the Sherman, however the West can and will produce more, and crew them, and the Sherman is being upgraded (I can't confirm this, but I believe by V-E day most Shermans are the 76mm version)along with newer designs that will reach the battlefield since America will not dismantle it's army or stop spending as it did after V-J day.

Now I have no doubt the Soviets will push the West back in the beginning, perhaps as far as the Alps and the Rhine, but I do not believe they can hope to advance any further then that without some kind of miracle. And they will be eventually pushed back across Europe perhaps into the Soviet Union, at which case I believe a negotiated peace is the most likely outcome, as the Soviets cannot continue the war, and the West does not want to continue it. This is the same reason the West did not tell Stalin to let go of his hold on Eastern Europe, they simply did not have the will to force him to do it, however had he tried to grab more, it's not really a matter of the West's will as they are forced to a confrontation, and they showed several times during the Cold War (The Berlin Airlift comes to mind) that they wouldn't just sit back.

 

I must be honest, I'm not sure who would win in a war between the USA and the Soviet Union, but I am sure that whatever happened it would have been a blood-bath for both sides no matter who won.

 

Another interesting question about the consequences: What would be the aftermath of this war? Would it be considered as part of WW2, or as a subsequent war?

 

I would see it as a separate conflict from the war....bit like the Russian civil war after WW1. All the major western powers sent troops to help the White Russians initially, but managed to extricate themselves from getting too deeply embroiled.


Regards,
Gordon

 

I can not imagine allies divions to stop the huge army of rusia (army who gained a huge experience from 1942).
If the war from allies and ussr had started at the 1 may '45 the rusia would had crush the little divions of allies (little compared to number of rusians divisions).
How can a Sherman or a Pershing stop a is2 ? or is3
A german tiger can't stopped that tank. Remember that most king tiger from rusians front were destroyed by is2 ("Tankomaster" #6 1999.)
A have a question.

How many shermans had to be to destroy a is2 (the fight to be in german plains without the support of infantry) ??

 

Mister Vanguard, could you please tell me about any battle, in which GI fought well against equally strong Germans ?
When you speak about Barbarossa, please remember that in 1941 US had no army at all !
Why do you think that Allies had better communications ? French and West German roads lied in ruins as well as roads of East Europe, our transport was equally good, and don't forget about the ocean.

I really respect your opinion and suggestions but I prefer comparebly precise figures and facts.

"West had manpower reserves, something the Soviets didn't enjoy, along with that the West had a nice big island the Soviets couldn't hope to touch (The Americas), where they are outproducing the Soviet homeland. The Soviets also have superior armor compared to the west, the T34 is better then the Sherman, however the West can and will produce more, and crew them, and the Sherman is being upgraded (I can't confirm this, but I believe by V-E day most Shermans are the 76mm version)along with newer designs that will reach the battlefield since America will not dismantle it's army or stop spending as it did after V-J day.
"
Indeed, Allies were unmatched in men ! Especially British for example. Allies could produce more tanks ! It's your own opinion , while history clearly showed that during peaceful times of Cold war (1945 - 1985 ), when both sides were preparing for WW III, USSR produced more tanks,planes etc. than entire NATO, had no problems with human resourses! For example , US produced M'47 and M'48 (If you don't beleive me, read Zaloga), which had numerous drawbacks, just because americans had nothing to oppose huge numbers of T-54 . The same story with "Sabre" vs. MiG-15.
If it took 5 months from Allies to cross Rhine , it doesn't mean that Soviet Army couldn't do the same quickly. Or maybe you think that all rivers of East Europe was crossed just by a miracle !?

Anyway you'd better know NATO ground force doctrines , which were defencive !

All your arguments sounds like "We are americans, so we are stronger."

[ 11. January 2004, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]

 

These figures are specially for Mr. Gardner, who called my "607 divs." a nonsense.
On 22.6.1941 Germany had 217(153) div. and lost during 1941 14 (13), in 1942 - had 226(158), lost 45(41), in 1943 - had 287(209), lost 81(70), in 1944 - had 318(201),lost 242(170), in 1945 - had 304(180), LOST 303(213). sO, totally, Germany lost 685(506) divs.

Figures in brackets are for the East.

So, if you add 101 surrendered German divs in 1945 to 506 , you'll get 607.

In addition, in May of 1945 US had no A-bombs, only in December of 1945 it got 196.
But even in 1949 Lieutenant-General Harmon committee (have you heard about it ?)concluded that US nuclear force couldn't guarantee the victory over USSR.

 

Germany surrenders,Stalin say's"I want all of Berlin".Who's going to give?France and England been fighting 5-6 yrs and probably would'nt help much.GI been in it 2 yrs and are Supermen cause we got THE BOMB.What a shock when USSR exploded their's,now what?That's why I requested"no a-bombs"in this thread.

 

Comparing the Soviet retreat in Summer 1941 with the U.S. retreat in Winter 1944/45 is a bit strong.

The Wehrmacht of summer 1941 was in relative comparison top quality, clearly some of the best armies in Europe in 1941. The Whermacht of late 1944/early 1945 was nothing even close to that.

The Red Army killed off the bulk of the German Army, and broke the back of the German war machine, period.

Cheers,

 

First, I did say that the Soviet armor was superior to Western arms, in particular the M4 Sherman, however the West will produce more. Why did they not during the Cold War, well, historically democracies do not produce huge numbers of forces in peacetime, the Soviet Union on the other hand practically relied on their Military industry to survive with their economy, and they also had a doctrine that stipulated massive armor forces, that is why the Warsaw Pact had much more armor then NATO. And yes, all NATO plans usually involved a defense, precisely becuase that is all they could do until the countries turned onto a wartime footing. The situation in 1945-46 is different however, for one, there is no NATO, and the US is finally on a wartime footing. How do I think the Allies could stop that armor, I've already gone through the Air Power thing earlier in this thread, please refer back to it.

And as to the capabilities of the US GI's, yes I suppose on all those wonderful little Pacific islands, the US landed and was quickly beaten back, they had to wait for the Australians and British to come and take back their islands, you know, the cream of the Allied armies. And the IJN, please, the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Whales dealt with that.