Patton wanted to take on the Soviets 1945

C. The Static divisions (many with Ost troops) which defended the coast were badly supplied with arms of all kinds, and captured weapons were used almost all along the Atlantic wall,usually weapons from which country the wall was streched over. I was refering to a standard type 44 infantry division at full strength serving in france 1944/45. I know that it was almost unheard off to have a German Division at full strength in 1944 (unless it was SS) but it was really just a bit of fun compairing differnt Divisional Artillerty.

 

Well, according to the statistical study of Zetterling's: Normandy 1944, about the state of the German forces in the battle, the Germans had more artillery guns per 1000 soldiers than the Allies (the Germans had 1 gun over 105 mm per 300 soldiers, while the Allies had 1 gun over 105 mm per 400 soldiers). But the Allies had greater ammunition supply per gun. Overall, he concluded, the Allies had 4 times more ammunition than the Germans (in terms of ammunition expenditure per day). But that was natural, since the Allies had 3-4 times more men, tanks, etc.

Overall, a German division had a powerful complement of artillery, as it was on artillery that the Germans depended on inflicting millions of casualties on the Allies (of course, the majority of these casualties were on the Soviets) during the war. If the Germans didn't have good artillery, how they could have resisted for so long and inflicted such great casualties on the Allies (casualties that were almost always greater or equal to the quantity they suffered)? You must assume the supermen hypothesis.

Also, in 1944 the Germans produced 60,000 guns equal or over 75 mm, Britain produced about 10 times less. Considering these facts, the statement that the Germans used the majority of foreign guns must be supported by some data.

 

Does this reflect static formations with fixed coast artillery?

 

No to say that the German forces were undersupplied, outnumbered in the ground by a large factor (2 or 3 to 1), fighting agaisnt the enormous Soviet army on the other site of Europe. It is no wonder that Patton won his battles. That what a competent general should have done.

 

I think that you should include other fronts into your analysis that these battles had effect on the timeline of the war. The Eastern Front was raging on with the majority of the German army, as the relatively small battles happened in the western front. The effects of these battles on the war as whole was comparatively small, specially if you compare it to the effects of the Soviet winter offensive and the operation Bagration. The western front can be considered as some kind of flank to the eastern front, as it forced the Germans to allocate divisions there, reducing the strength of their forces in the east.

 

No.

 

That is what you keep saying in your posts at AHF where you dismiss the whole of the Western Campaign as unimportant.

 

There is a difference between unimportant and the only important front.

To say that the timing of the war was decided by the western front, that some battle won there had an impact of lengthening the war for 8 months, shows that
one doesn't understand that WW2 had other fronts, specially the eastern front. This applies even assuming that the western front was equal in importance to the eastern front.

To say that the Lorraine campaign lengthened the war by 8 months is to imply that the eastern front wasn't important in the war's conclusion. But the eastern front was the most important single front in determining the date of the ending of the war (it ended when the red army reached Berlin) and the outcome of it.

 

That seems like a weird place to break it as much of the allied artillery was 105mm so it wouldn't be included. Was this just field artillery or did it include coastal defence guns?

 

Well said. Also, as I think I might be putting words into your mouth in a way, that I too feel that the Eastern Front was a bit more active than the Western Front, was on a much larger scale and thusly, a bit of a bigger problem than the West Front was BECAUSE, they were birds of a different feather so to speak. Im NOT trying to step on anyones toes on this one but those who dont think the East Front was a tough place, I highly suggest you meet a few vets from both sides of the battlelines, and also do a bit more reading on the subject, and you might begin to really understand.

Overkill, this post is not aimed at you-but to those in general who are trying a bit to "lessen" the impact of the whole of the Campaigns in the East. Im merely trying to point out the differences-ala: Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Kharkov, Novorossisk, The Crimea, Sebastopol, Leningrad, Kharkov pt II, Operations Big and Little Saturn, and too many others to try mentioning by name.

 

Would the PTO had suffered, with loss of the troops of the ETO ?. Going back to the east v west fronts, after D-Day which front had the most SS Divisions on it, I have some data on the amount of artillery the 12th SS had and it was well equipped not only with 105mm & 150mm Howitzers but also 100mm Kanons.

 

What?
The British Army being considerably smaller than the German Army needed less guns?
The British Army not having any major campaigns was able to stockpile guns in 1942/43 and Germany was losing them in numbers and had to replace losses?
You will be telling me next that the UK produced more ships than Germany because its Navy was bigger-it is called stating the obvious.

March 1944, Artillery.
East. 8454 of which 1607 is foriegn.
West. 4919 of which 3786 is foriegn. Half west total is Naval (2413) and 2098 were foriegn.
Note the date before questioning the figures

 

Depends on what you mean by "suffered". If the west had gone to war with the Soviets in the summer of 45 then you are probably looking at a containment policy vs the Japanese. That is keep hitting them form the air and sinking anything that ventures out of port but don't plan any invasions. The atomic bombs might well have been held back for us vs the Soviets as well. On the other hand as has been pointed out it's hard to tell what would happen as there were so many factors against such a conflict and so few favoring it.

 

Are you sure about that?

Can you list the types and numbers that make up this '60,000'?
I cant get it anywhere near that number.

 

Patton realized that the ussr was as great a threat as Nazi Germany. He made some comments that indicated this belief and was surely frustrated that we sat by and let Russia enslave a large portion of Europe. The truth is that logistically we could not have won a war with Russia. The only reason Russia did not fight us then on European soil ,and they would have,is the introduction of the atom bomb 3 months later. When Russia finally stole the bomb secrets from us and made their own, both countries fought war by proxy countries for the next 50 yrs.

 

Silly me, and here I thought that Stalin didnt attack the West because he genuinely considered them Allies...


Below is a photo of a monument erected on Stalin's orders. A French, Russian, U.S. and a British soldier are depicted and bellow the engraving reads: "To countries involved in the Anti-Hitler coalition".
These soldiers stand in the center of Moscow.
View attachment 13307

 

Notice that the American, the Englishman and the Frenchman have their rifles slung. The fighting's over and the soldiers rejoice. The Soviet soldier isn't even armed.

 

We should have known (and did know) what our Uncle Joe was up to when:

1. He decimated his entire officer corps during the run up to the war. His purges are legendary. Even Zhukov was lucky to have survived.
2. His intelligence staff completely bungled the pre-Barbarossa reports, resulting in the near annihilation of the Red Army, Air Force and Nation. Read Churchill's The Grand Alliance (it may have been one of the earlier volumes - Gathering Storm etc.) for a blistering, sardonic and hilarious roast of Stalin's incompetence in this critical phase of the war. It is two long paragraphs and I will post this someday. It will most likely cause you a jolly good time reading it. He shreds the poor sod.
3. He cut a deal with Churchill for post war hegemony - Greece for Bulgaria and the Balkans. Joe sure made those Axis collaborators pay and pay.........
4. He left his Army Group on the outskirts of Warsaw while the Wehrmacht disemboweled what was left of the city after the Ghetto liquidation. Even as Churchill and FDR pleaded with him to allow the RAF to resupply the partisans from Soviet airfields. Of course we know they got the nyet on that request so the partisans took it on the chin while they starved and were mercilessly bombed out. So it goes.

No offense intended to anyone OK?