Myths of the Eastern Front

Why ?

Do you have proofs that we all are stinking ?

 

Is your English comprehension really that abysmal?

 

Just trust me and try to take it as a fact. :sunglasses-peek:

 

Rejoice in the fact that the quote button has now been found on LJAd's screen...

 

I don't see how it can be, especially with the number and type of organism that can cause it.

 

That isn't that simple. You have two options: (i) trust me or (ii) in-depth study of immunology and microbiology.

 

Most viruses and bacteria that cause problems confir some imunity from subsequent infections if you survive the first one. As they are some of the causes I simply can't see how anyone can clearly state that are no cases where they confir some imunity. Futhrermore some of the other causes such as amebas don't seam to affect the locals. The implication is that one gets at least some immunity to the symptoms with exposure over time.

Probably best to move this to a thread of it's own especially if it is going ot get pretty technical.

 

As this topic involves the so-called "Continuation War", how about Italian troops with Army Group South had started in Finland instead ? Would this be a good "What-if" topic ?

 

Start a new thread in the what-if section, obeying the strict rules for those threads.

 

Why that phrasing and the quotes?

 

The Continuation War 25.(22.)6.1941-19.(4./5.)9.1944 (against the USSR) is the official name of that war in Finland. During the WW2 there were also two other, separate wars in Finland: The Winter War 30.11.1939-13.3.1940 (against the USSR) and the Lapland War 15.9.1944-27.4.1945 (against Germany).

Naturally all those three wars were parts of the WW2 and every new war was a consequence of the earlier one(s).

 

Indeed that's what I've always heard it call thus wonder at the "so called" phraseing and the quotes.

 

In the Russian History books I have heard that at times there never was a thing we call the "winter war" or it was just a couple of shots fired between the countries and then back to normal duty...

 

On purely military terms (thus a probable what-if), could the Finnish land forces push towards the White Sea and the port of Murmansk from 1942 onwards ? Obviously Germany and the USSR was in mortal combat and thus the Red Army preoccupied with the fighting in the south. Finland on her own was perpertual short of manpower; any personnels who would have used to cold weather were useful: Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian. Because of the poor roads and lines of communications, were heavy tanks less useful than armored car, bicycle troops from airborne lines of communication (transport, supplies, paras) ?

In terms of weaponry deployment, would earlier development and deployment of infantry anti-tank weapons like panzerfaust, panzerschreck in 1941 onwards help the Finnish forces ?

In terms of national border, would the "Border of Three Isthmuses" which was essentially a line from the Gulf of Finland to the White Sea coast help ease Finnish defense against the Red Army ? In other words, German, Finnish and friendly forces if available would need to capture Murmansk. Frankly, if the current national border of Russia and Finland was indeed a variation of the "Border of Three Isthmuses", would Karelia and Kola Peninsula be better developed than they are now ? I have seen photos of Murmansk outside of the city which revealed abandoned port facilities and obviously ww2 fortifications. I did not intend to hurt any Russian feelings but population of Murmansk has been in decline since the dissolution of the SU; would Finnish government perform better if Murmansk was now a Finnish city ?

 

General Dietl tried to reach the Murmansk railroad line and, after success, Murmansk itself. I think it was called "Operation Polarfuchs". He didn't use roads, because there weren't any. When his exhausted troops reached the first road, the Red Army could attack him easily and push him back.
I don't see why this should change in 1942.

The Wehrmacht itself didn't have much anti-tank-capability in 1941, they still widely used the 37mm Pak. Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust weren't invented. Against the heavy KV-1 and T-34 they had only a few 50mm Paks and the famous 88mm AA-Guns. A few french and Skoda 47mm AT-Guns and that's it.
The finnish molotov cocktails were a very effective weapon.

 

The reinforced 1942 ARMIR as made up of three 3 division corps, a mountain one (alpini) a semi motorized one and a regular infantry one plus an additional division that was used for rear area duties, the additional troops could make a difference, assuming they could be supplied. But the Italian "alpini" were mountain troops so while reasonably well equipped for cold, and including a significant number of ski trained personnel, were not ideal for that mostly flat environment, they would have been a lot more useful in the Caucasus as originally planned. Most Italian units relied on horse transport, with the alpini having large number of mules, that are very useful in in the mountains but wold have difficulties finding fodder in the artic. The original "semi motorised" CSIR's equipment would probably not perform well in artic weather and be a lot more useful supporting the panzers as it was used in 1941. I believe keeping the ARMIR together reduced it's usefulness though probably it was unavoidable for political and logistical reasons, the Italians didn't send enough support assets to supply 3 independent corps.

 

As there were only few KV1 and T 34 on 22 june 1941,it is questionable that the number of 50 mm PAK was insufficient :

The Soviets had some 20000 tanks in june 1941 (spreaded from Brest-Litovsk to Vladivostok) of which 890 T 34 and 510 KV 1,while the Ostheer had on 22 june 1941 10.494 37 mm PAK and 932 37 mm PAK.

Whatever, on 5 december 1941,almost all Soviet tanks had been lost .

It is also unproven that the Panzerschreck/Panzerfaust were as goog/better than the 37 mm PAK.

 

And we have another useless "contribution by LJ. Depending on what your defintion of "good" or "better" is the above can be either obvious or not. If you are an infantry man you can carry the shreck or the faust. Carrying a 37mm PAK is a bit much. If you want to take something out at over a couple hundred meters the hand carried weapons don't cut it. The point however was that the hand carried ones could penetrate the T-34 and the KV-1 while the 37mm PAK couldn't so in the sense of this conversation they were better.

 

Haha: the "could " argument .

1)There was no reason for having the Panzerfaust in 1941

2) The Panzerfaust was introduced not because he was better,but because he was cheaper ;

3)There are no statistics proving that the Panzerfaust was more efficient than the PAK 37/50,or maybe you have stats indicating that the use of 100 Panzerfausts resulted in the destruction of 18 T34/KV1 with a loss of 40 German soldiers, while 10 PAK firing 100 shells resulted in the destruction of only 14 T 34/KV1 with a loss of 41 German soldiers .

The 1941 campaign resulted in the loss of 13405 Soviet tanks (German figures) while the Germans lost 3276 PAK 37 mm and there is no proof that the use of the Panzerfaust would have resulted in the loss of more Soviet tanks and less German PAK .

 

??? Less point to this sentence than you normally have and that's saying something.

Of course there was. Infantry can always use a tank killing weapon when they are likely to encounter enemy tanks. Also works on fortifications and even buildings.

source please. I'd also like to know what you think it was cheaper than.

The penetration capabilities are a pretty clear indicator that if you are facing a T-34 or KV a Panzerfaust is indeed more efficient thatn a PAK 37. That's rather besides the point though because they didn't replace PAK guns with Panzerfausts did they? As for your numbers without a description of the circumstances they are useless. Of course that's rather redunant as it describes your posts in general doesn't it? By the way it's not clear if it's a statisitically signifiant difference but your numbers do point to a superiority of the Panzerfaust although as I stated this could be misleading without knowledge of exactly what was happening.

Proof? Of course not it's a hypothetical but it certainly would be a reasonable assumption to make. Which I guess explains why you are so opposed to it.