USSR VS.USA

If the US could use german equipment - would it really make any impact - by war's end how much German armor was available? As far as I'm aware - most of what was left by '45 was used up defending Berlin - by April-May '45 they were throwing traning tanks into the battle (Tiger IIs, etc.) Any thoughts?

 

Trying to find the battle report of hetzers takin on JS-IIs... they gave the Soviets a rite bloody nose...


But I still dont think a war between US & USSR wud have been likely, neither side wud have been ready to accept more losses, well maybe the USSR wud! But certainly not the Brits!

 

BTW some of those Russians in NOrmandy fought very hard...


Drache, if this is a 'what if', why couldnt the US take over the factories and start buildin Tigers and panthers or whatever! Id rather have a Tiger II than a Sherman! But I would settle for a Pershing...

Not all German armour was destroyed, a bit found its way into several post war armies, the French, even the Pakistani and Syrian... I have a pic of a syrian panzer IV...

 

It is a great tank. If it fights alone it may be in great disadvantage because of low fire-rate. But IS tanks did not fight alone, they fough around many T-34s and shot at big distances. The tank didn't have to shoot many times. A single hit from its 122mm gun at 700 metres could easily knock out a Tiger II.

I never said all units were crap. But most of them were. And yes, you're right. Some of the very few élite divisions can be considered as good as 41 regular units, maybe better. I don't question that.

It is logical, and you stated that some historians don't take that into account. Or am I 'lost in translation'? What I say is that many people in this thread are not taking into account that the 1945 Red Army was the biggest and most powerful fighting force on the ground in 1945.

I don't question the Western Allies' efforts either, they helped to speed things up incredibly and they do deserve a lot of credit.

BUT…

YES. But maybe in 1947…

Those very 19 divisions could have destroyed the Allies' invasion. But 19 divisions could not have changed things in the east, nor all 40 divisions in the west. The Wehrmacht needed its 25 divisions destroyed at Stalingrad, and the 100 divisions destroyed in the fighting in 1941, 1942 and 1943 to make a difference in mid 1944.

My cypher includes every male serving in the military killed, in battle, in accidents, of decease, of wounds, etc. Of the remaining 20 million people killed in the fighting (95% of them civilians) you cannot expect to find a big percentage of men in military age.

Nor the yanks.

 

I think I can even find you reports of M1 Abrams taken out by Iraqis with RPGs, so it all boils down to tactics, in this case Hetzers most likely being able to let the bear pass and shoot at his side armour.

And I don't really think the KT was such a great tank. Even forgetting about it's reliability problems (how many did see direct action in the Bulge) you also have to consider it's side armour being soft steel in order to save on hard alloy metals!

But then of course if the Americas were restarting the production line they might provide up to spec materials, but why bother when they had the M-26 coming out like hot pizzas?

And as for the help the Western Allies provided, of course that's undeniable, read my avatar's lips

However there is also something to bear in mind - German High Command doubtful competence. When Op. Wacht am Rhein was terminated (The Bulge) where did 6th Pz Army go, where Guderian wanted? No, it was sent to the Lake Balaton hell hole, to keep the Hungarians in line. So Guderian's big hope of strengthening Army Group Vistula went to pieces. We could say the Germans sometimes were a big help.

Too bad they were so damned good tactically, they went from tactical victory to tactical victory until final defeat

Sometimes even their tactical prowess is taken as victory, when in fact it means defeat. Look for instance at the Mius river operation, right after Kursk, when the 2nd SS Pz. Army had to rush there to stop a soviet offensive. It did give the Sovs a bloody nose.

Problem was this offensive was a diversion, to draw reserves away from Op. Rumiantsev, the conquest of Bielgorod - Kharkov. And it worked! Of course the Mius operation had to be a defeat because not much more was expected from it at that stage. All it had to do was draw away Manstein's reserve, and the old fox fell for it. When it became available again for Karkhov, it was already worn down and late!

[ 25. June 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

 

Ok I give in!

Still dont like the JSIII though... its just a big lump of metal on tracks... No finesse!

As for Abrams taken out by RPGs... exactly my point! It aint what ya got, its what ya do with it!

Finally, the Germans were tactically superb but strategically inept? I can live with that...

Who won the war... The Allies with help from the Germans???

 

What makes you think Adolf was not KGB?

 

Ah Comrade Hitler... Thats why the Russians were so keen to take Berlin! To get their top agent out!!!

Its all so clear now...

And a pic for Fried....





See... Big lump of metal on tracks... Impressive lump though... But only 28 main gun rounds...

 

Pershing engaging JS-III in a Berlin suburb..?



Or maybe not...

 

Good photos and good conclsuions!

 

Well knew we would get to the bottom of WW2 at some point... Hitler was a soviet spy! Simple!

 

LOL - That's rich - he was a closet commie - the plan was to destroy Germany from the inside with a ridiclous policital movement, thereby eliminating the only serious threat to the western expansion of communism! I think we're on to something -

Anyone have any info on how many and where the Pershings were in ETO by the VE-day?

 

General quoted some 900 aircraft lost by the russians during the Berlin offensive.Seems a little high considering that the Luftwaffe was pretty much out of it then. As for Red's pic of the Pershing,that one and a couple others are very publicised.The Pershing destroyed a Panther in the streets of Cologne to the joy of the camera crew riding behind in a jeep.Not the best place for open country tanks like Pershings or Tigers.

 

Framert:

Most of those 900 planes must have been lost due to accidents, AA and ground fire.

Also, take into consideration that the fighting extended for two weeks and over a very wide front. But Erich can surely tell us about Luftwaffe sorties in these days.

 

Drache...

I have a source that states 20 Pershings sent to ETO in January 1945 as part of Zebra mission. The first combat occurred in February. Was used by the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions. 310 were eventually deployed in Europe. Also saw action on Okinawa.

On the Pershing...

" The M26 Pershing was the culmination of the T20 series of test vehicles. The T26 series was reclassed from medium to heavy tanks on June 29, 1944, but renamed as medium tanks in May 1946. Although not standardized until March 1945, Pershings had been sent to the European Theater of Operations as T26E3s with the Zebra Mission in January 1945 (along with equipment including pilot models of the 155mm GMC M40 and 8" HMC M43). M26 was armed with the same 90mm gun as the M36 tank destroyer, and the GAF engine in the M26 was essentially the GAA of the medium tank M4A3 redesigned to present a lower height, even though M26 weighed almost 26,000lbs (12,000kg) more than M4A3. This produced an underpowered and relatively unreliable tank. The drive sprocket of the M26 was mounted below the level of the track's upper run, and the engine exhaust escaped through an opening in the hull rear plate. A bulge in the hull glacis between the drivers housed an exhaust blower."

"Developed as the successor of the M4 Sherman at the end of WWII was a tank that finally promised to hold up against the wrath of the German Tiger I and Panther tanks of the German army. This tank, which was on the forefront of the mechanized combat technology of its time and reigned supreme in the world of armor, was the U.S. Medium Tank M26 Pershing.

The Pershing was first deployed to the European front on February 1945 as part of the effort to invade the German homeland. The M26 Pershing engaged Tiger I and Pz.kpfw. IV tanks during the fight to cross Hohenzollern Bridge over the Rhine. The battle in which the M26 Pershing showed particularly critical influence, was that of the Ludendorf Bridge in Remagen. In this offensive, five supporting M26 Pershing tanks rained shells onto the opposite side of the river bank, paving the way for ground troops who moved in to seize the bridge. The Pershing, of which 200 were used against Germany until its surrender, was also deployed to the front of the war in the Pacific.

M26 Pershing Tanks were immediately deployed when the Korean War began in June 1950. Until July 1953, the M26 fought successfully alongside the M4A3E8 Easy Eight and the M46 Patton with the main forces of United Nations against the rival T34/85 Soviet built tanks of the North Korean and Chinese volunteer armies.
From November 1944 until June 1945, a total of 1190 units were produced. The Pershing was well balanced for defense with its 127mm thick armor and for assault with the sheer firepower of its M3 90mm gun. Equipped with a Ford GAF liquid cooled gasoline engine and torsion bar suspension, this tank exhibited incredible mobility. As such, the M26 served as a model for the designs of the M46, M48, and M60 tanks. It can even be said that the engineering of the M26 served as a foundation for current U.S. tank designs, such as that of the dominant M1 Abrams Tank."

Something small on Zebra Mission...

"In the Fall of 1944, production of the T26E3 had begun at the Fisher Tank Arsenal.
By January, 1945, forty of these tanks had been produced. Twenty went to Fort Knox for testing and the other twenty went to war in Belgium for 'Trial by Fire'.
General Bradley divided the twenty tanks equally between the 3d Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division."




One of 3rd Armies Pershing's...

 

Once again, I am new to this forum, but I have a few facts to add here. First, the manpower issue. The soviets had more or less used up thier military age reserves. The U.S. however, only lost 450,000. Gen. Ikes policy of not drafting married men at the onset of the war was about to be reversed due to the battle of the Bulge. This frees up approximately 4 million more men. The Navy, and Air force would only receive minimal amounts of these since they were already at a level of dominace throughout the world. Yes folks, the U.S. Army would receive probably about 3million of these men to beef up thier ranks and open new divisions. And we arent even digging yet for manpower. You must also realize that once the West easily wins the first few battles, the Eastern european nations would gladly follow along. The west obviously wouldnt turn the rifles on the newly conquered lands as the Nazis did. As a matter of fact, a majority of the early satellite nations populace wished to join the germans to remove stallin from power. Thats even more manpower to add to the growing pool that the US could easily equip. I know this not from reading books, but because my grandmother was born and raised in kiev, ukraine and would tell me how much she hated communists even before the war broke out. She said the men in her village all tried to help the nazis at first but soon realized this was a mistake. Couple this with overwhelming air superiority and tactics, the russians wouldnt stand a chance.

 

Dont write those pesky Ivans off so easily BigBert...

Interesting to hear your Grandmothers comments. I imagine alot of people felt that way till the true nature of the German occupation became apparent.

 

Bert,

What you say is true. But that still supports my arguments, since those 3 million men you're mentioning would have taken time to be drafted, trained, equipped, transferred across the ocen and finally, deployed at the front. Meanwhile, Ike's 85 divisions would have received a very, very big kick in the ass. Then after six months and many victories by the Red Army, the tide would have changed in favour of the West.

 

just thought I'd add a reply to a post on this i read earlier. yes its true it took a couple months for the allies to break out of the hedgrows. But everyone forgets, we had no land bridge to england, and one of our man made piers was destroyed in a storm. This left us with only one. Imagine trying to supply 9 divisions with just one man made pier! It was a logistical nightmare. Let alone trying to land more divisions. People are quick to point this out, but look realistically, we had no ports!! Once we had Antwerp, it was all over, and the Germans knew it, perhaps this was why the battle of bulge was aimed at capturing the port? Lets also not forget the terrain itself. I have personally seen the hedgrows and they are perfectly set up for defensive operations. It was not the Us soldiers ill will to fight. Just a prepared area of operations the germans had 4 years to prepare! And on the quality of troops? Does anyone here not know about 101st airborne holding off for a week, 6 german infantry and armor divisions?? No air support, no resupply? Whoever made the comment about americans will to fight obviously has more reading to do.

 

At the absolute best, the Soviets in a scenario like this would advance 250 to 300 km and then grind to a halt for 6 months while their logistical train, such as it was, caught up. This pattern is repeated with every offensive they launched in World War 2. It would be unreasonable to expect anything different in this scenario. Thus, the best the Soviets could do was maybe make the Rhine and sit.
Then, it would be the West's turn to bury them in a counter offensive. Just some other numbers: The US had just over 1 million troops in Naval Construction Battalions (who are also trained as infantry). There are almost 1 million soldiers in the US in various units not shipped overseas in 1945. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that by late 1946 the US alone could have had 200 to 250 divisions in service if they really wanted or needed to.
Also, the Soviets face a real problem in that they would find themselves in a two or three front war very quickly. What happens when Sakalin Island falls (20 - 25% of their oil supply)? What happens when their Siberian troops are cut off by bombing the @$#@ out of the single rail line supporting them?
Another real possibility is a Black Sea / Iranian / Turkish invasion as well. Unlike the Allies, the Soviets have only limited ability to move their troops strategically. Look at how long it took them to move East for their invasion of Manchuria. And, that was unopposed.
In the short term the Soviets stand to make minor gains in such a war. In the long term they lose big.