Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

[sburke]

Just some perspective on what Russia was capable of if NOT for US Aid.. which would kind of come to a halt in a war

....  my bold

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers decreased severely production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex. For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically ended rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,^[24] with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.^[25] In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease,^[23] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars^[26] which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.^[27]

Furthermore, much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.^[28]

Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 13% of Soviet wartime aircraft production.^[23] And while most tank units were Soviet-built models, some 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks were deployed by the Red Army, or 8% of war-time production.

According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.^[23]

Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.^[29]

In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the famous Soviet Marshal G.K. Zhukov is quoted as saying:

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn’t really help us… But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.^[30

Net conclusion- if Zhukov felt that Russia would have been defeated by Germany without Lend lease, how well would they have done against the allies without it....

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

basing what might have happened on a game with scripting that is questionable is not a very valid historical argument.

Don't be daft dude, what I'm doing is mentioning another BFC product that will allow those who have a mind to, to play this out.....FFS give me some credit. 

1 hour ago, sburke said:

a hypothetical 1948 WWIII scenario

That should answer your initial questions.....Lend-Lease etc. are not an issue and presumably the dastardly Commies have been planning. 

The weakness in the Soviet supply system is modelled into the game and it's one of the things I will seek to take advantage of.....As I said, I can't recommend these games highly enough, they have a simple elegance that I find irresistible.

1 hour ago, sburke said:

As to China taking Taiwan.. How did that happen when they couldn't do it in real life and wanted to? How did they manage in your game with no navy or air force to speak of?

They haven't and as I said I can be fairly confident of holding it, but the situation on the mainland is utterly dire, I can probably hold out there for a while, but win? 

SC is turn based so I've just had to sit and watch while I got a pasting, I haven't made my first move yet.....I'll probably open a thread in the SC:GC Gold forum in due course and, if you have a mind to, you can follow the developing situation there without my derailing this thread with it. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

As for your perspective, I'm not arguing with any of it.....But it still doesn't mean Enola Gay could just cruise over Red Square unmolested, in 1945 or 1948. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MikeyD]

China vs Taiwan might be interesting as a modern war title (upgrade M60a3s vs Type 99As) . But when they roll over to game engine 3 (whatever its called) BFC will be out of the business of modern war. At least in the near-term, according to Steve.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

But when they roll over to game engine 3 (whatever its called) BFC will be out of the business of modern war. At least in the near-term, according to Steve.

That's a bit depressing, but probably quite wise. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Actually, there are a couple of points I have issues with:

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Makes one wonder about Tito with allies in the west. Not to mention, the Soviets would actually be even more vulnerable to an anti Russian partisan movement in Poland and the Ukraine.  So you have a Russian army in Germany under assault from everything the Allies can throw at it with a logistical supply line going back to the Urals that is under attack throughout Poland and the Ukraine while US carrier groups are raiding the Baltic coast all the way back to St Petersburg...mmm I am not thinking this is a winning scenario. 

You are aware that The Soviets managed to equip Tito with tanks, during the war? 

The Soviets weren't at all kind to the remnants of Allied intelligence networks in occupied territories.

1 hour ago, sburke said:

The Russians had never experienced the artillery power of the west either.  That was gonna be a real bad experience as Russian artillery capabilities weren't even close.

Are you sure you got that the right way round? 

1 hour ago, ASL Veteran said:

Pershing / Super Pershing and T54 would be interesting.  

That is only ever going to end one way.....Pershing would be hard pressed to deal with an IS-2M, let alone a T-54.

As for Super Pershing, I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference even if the US had deployed all twenty-five.

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Glubokii Boy]

59 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Are you sure you got that the right way round? 

 

 

That caught my eye also...I have Always had the impression that the russians deployed artillery on a level 'unheard' of anywhere else...

also..

I'm not even close to having the historical knowledge of many of you other guys here...but a small detail that i think have been somewhat missed in the discussion on what the russians would or would not be able to do in a follow up war...compared to how they faired against the germans...

The russian readines for war !

During the first few years the russians survived in a large degree because of the western lend-lease...this is probably true...But in 1945, 46 the russian situation did not look anything near what it did in 1941. When the germans attack the russians pretty much lacked even half decent leaders  at every level because of the purges. At the start of the war the majority of the russian equipment where already obsolete (and broken). They lacked radios. The organisation and tactics of their armed forces where not 'the best' and needed fixing...during the war.

All these shortcommings lead to the ridiculous russian losses in the first few years. These catastrophic losses required lend-lease to fill out the ranks...by 1945, 46 most of these shortcommings had been addressed...The russian Equipment where not obsolete, the russian leaders (and Soldiers) had experience and knowledge of how to fight a war.

This combined with the fact that the russian industry where 'in place' and working at full speed...( something that was not the case in 41,42 i Think) could perhaps result in the russians not being all that dependant on wester lend-lease in 1945...

The russians might still have lost to allied air power in 1945 but comparing the russian situation in 45 to how it looked during the war against the germans seems quite limited...

 

 

[sburke]

26 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Actually, there are a couple of points I have issues with:

You are aware that The Soviets managed to equip Tito with tanks, during the war? 

The Soviets weren't at all kind to the remnants of Allied intelligence networks in occupied territories.

Are you sure you got that the right way round? 

That is only ever going to end one way.....Pershing would be hard pressed to deal with an IS-2M, let alone a T-54.

As for Super Pershing, I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference even if the US had deployed all twenty-five.

 

I am aware of a lot of things, and I can be daft if I want to  You brought up the game as an example not me.   If it wasn't to make a point in this discussion then I'd say it was misleading and out of place. 

When those uber Russian tanks are out of gas it really won't matter what gun or armor they have.  It wasn't like the Allies hadn't already run up against an opponent with heavier tanks...they managed then too.  One mistake I think you make is you presume all the good aspects of how things went for post war Russia are still there and all the bad things go away or can be ignored.  If the war was not going to occur until 1948 when the uber sneaky  Russian were "ready" I am afraid they were already screwed as the nukes now become a much more serious affair.  Either Russia commits to an immediate offensive in 1945 for whatever reason we are projecting for the war to continue or they don't do it at all.  1945 was the only time to do it where there was a slender chance of trying to shoot for the Rhine.  Russia didn't have a successful nuclear test until August 1949.  

I don't care if Russia supplied Tito with tanks,. the question was who's side would Tito fight for if Russia went to war with the allies.  He wasn't exactly enamored with Russia. Neutrality is the most likely option.  Though he did actually fight the allies in some skirmishes after the end of the war.  That is different than actually declaring war though.

Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from November 1942 until April 1992. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he became the first Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony in 1948 and the only one in Joseph Stalin's time to manage to leave Cominform and begin with its own socialist program with elements of market socialism.

Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle. [...] If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second.

— Josip Broz Tito^{[132] (}^ Medvedev, Zhores A.; Medvedev, Roy A.; Jeličić, Matej; Škunca, Ivan (2003). The Unknown Stalin. Tauris. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-58567-502-9.)

 

As to the artillery, uh yeah.  Really you think the Russians were even close to the proficiency of Allied artillery?  Even the Germans said they had never experienced anything like what they got hit with in the west.  They would presumably be the best ones to compare.   Russia was good for a static barrage to launch an offensive, but once the lines started moving forget it.  And the odds they would get away with the tactics they used on the Germans is slim to none.  Allied airpower would be roaming the battlefield looking for those supply convoys artillery trains etc and there is no way in hell I think the Russians were up to facing the full might of allied air power.  The US produced some 200,000 combat aircraft in WW2.  As Stalin supposedly said:  "Quantity has a quality all it's own".  And that quantity was of a very high quality as well.

Time on target, proximity fuses, counter battery...... I mean geez the Russians being better?  One word - communications net.... okay two words.  If you really think the Russians were more proficient in artillery I think I will pass you the daft cap. - but only if you promise to give it back.  if you want your own you'll have to register with the Daft Board.

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Even the Germans said they had never experienced anything like what they got hit with in the west.  They would presumably be the best ones to compare.

I've read the exact opposite. 

1 hour ago, sburke said:

If you really think the Russians were more proficient in artillery I think I will pass you the daft cap.

More proficient, no I'd agree the western Allies definitely held the edge there, but they would often be outranged and always be outnumbered, so as Stalin allegedly said...... 

As for my comment with regard to Stalin sending SU-76s & T-34s to Tito it was more a comment on the Soviets ability to supply their nominal allies than on Tito's loyalties.

PS - According to Wiki the US produced 300,000 combat aircraft, the USSR just under 160,000.....What you are forgetting is that the US equipped many Air Forces other than their own (including the Red one), the USSR not so much. 

Country	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
U.S.	2,141	6,068	18,466	46,907	84,853	96,270	45,852	300,557
Germany	8,295	10,862	12,401	15,409	24,807	40,593	7,540	119,907
USSR	10,382	10,565	15,737	25,436	34,900	40,300	20,900	158,220
UK	7,940	15,049	20,094	23,672	26,263	26,461	12,070	131,549
Japan	4,467	4,768	5,088	8,861	16,693	28,180	8,263	76,320
Total	33,225	47,312	71,786	120,285	187,516	231,804	94,625	786,553

Now surely that suggests that the US Air Force(s) would eventually overwhelm the Soviets and I'm not denying that probability, nor have I done so, but once again that still doesn't let Enola Gay waltz into Russia on a whim. 

To remind you (once again):

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 1:59 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not convinced that a B-29 mission into the teeth of the Red Airforce would be much fun, the US would have to degrade their combat airpower as they did with Japan before they could risk a nuclear strike.  Frankly it would be the mission from hell IMHO.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

But I find the indignation at my suggestion that the Red Air Force might not just let the USAF waltz up and nuke Moscow utterly comical. 

The only thing that's comical is your idea that the Soviet Air Force was somehow prepared to deal with legions of strategic bombers and fighters that ruled the high-altitude skies. It flat-out wasn't. The only high-altitude fighter the Soviets had during the war worth speaking of was the MiG-3, and that thing was phased out fairly quickly in favor of more Lavochkins, LaGGS, and Sturmoviks. 

Make no mistake, the Soviet urban centres would have been reduced to ashes in short order, had there been a war against the US.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Apples & Oranges fella.....MiG-3 was an early war type with a high-altitude role, it had 'issues' (but damn wasn't it pretty):

Late war Yak-3s & La-7s were quite capable up to 30000ft+, more than adequate for the bulk of the US heavy bomber force.....I wouldn't argue about the probable end result of the conflict, but I think you might be a bit out on the timescale, Russia has proven remarkably resilient to conquest over the ages.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LukeFF]

11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Apples & Oranges fella.....MiG-3 was an early war type with a high-altitude role

That's why I said "the only high-altitude fighter they had during the war." I didn't refer to any particular time period.

13 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Late war Yak-3s & La-7s were quite capable up to 30000ft+, more than adequate for the bulk of the US heavy bomber force

Quite capable? Seriously, where are you drawing this info from? The La-7 topped out at 6000 meters and was a low-mid altitude interceptor. Yak-3? Shorted-ranged, low-medium altitude, lightly-built fighter. It sure as heck wasn't designed to take on enemy bombers at 30,000 feet. You're giving Soviet fighter designers far more credit that they deserve.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

49 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

That's why I said "the only high-altitude fighter they had during the war." I didn't refer to any particular time period.

What possible relevance would an early war fighter have in 1945-48? 

49 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Quite capable? Seriously, where are you drawing this info from? The La-7 topped out at 6000 meters and was a low-mid altitude interceptor.

You what? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-3

Both had a service ceiling around 10000m (To be completely fair I must concede that the La-7 had issues above the 6000m you quote when initially deployed and that the Yak-3 was better at lower altitude, but neither fact rules them out for the scenario we are discussing).

By 1948 this aircraft would have to be considered too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-9

49 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Yak-3? Shorted-ranged, low-medium altitude, lightly-built fighter.

You must be thinking of the Yak-9 (although that one was actually heavier built than the Yak-3, certain variants were used as bombers & tank-busters, including one with a 45mm AT gun firing through the spinner). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9

Even that was still good to just over 9000m.

FWIW, according to the same source, the B-29 had a service ceiling under 10000m:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

There's also an issue with the B-29s range & payload.....Assuming they were based in East Anglia UK, by far the most likely basing option, they could only just carry a 5000lb bombload to Moscow, 'Fat Man' weighed 10000lbs & 'Tall Boy' 12000lbs.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

36 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

To remind you (once again):

I am not sure why you keep reminding me of that.  The only thing I have said about Nukes is that the USSR would need to attack before that projection of 1948 as they had no nuke of their own and by 1948 The US would have more than a few.  One nuke is all they would need to take out a pretty good chunk of the Red Army concentrated for an offensive.  They wouldn't need to go to Moscow.

My argument is more focused on the sheer logistical juggernaut the Russians would face.  They had beaten a Country that was it's own worst enemy when it came to production.  They were not going to fare that well against the greatest industrial power the world had ever known.  Hell the US built 24 Essex class carriers by 1945.  The US Army was an extremely mobile veteran organization at this point with an air force and Navy to back them up that was overwhelmingly way more powerful than Russia. Look at your chart - peak production from Russia 40,000 airframes, peak production US and UK over 120,000.  And unlike Germany, the US could hit some those factories.  I wouldn't count on that peak production lasting.  I don't think it is an issue of the US "eventually" overwhelming the Red Air Force.  It would happen rather fast. I don't say that because I discount Russian experience, bravery or air frames.  It is just they were going up against a far more powerful force that was not at the end of a long logistical train that was vulnerable.  The US could and would hit the major train yards for sure.  They would also be hitting the oil fields so from a logistical standpoint alone, the Russians would 1 have to spread themselves to cover a lot of vulnerable locations and 2 do so without the logistical supplies they had been getting from the west.  Losses would not be able to be made up as quickly etc.

As to striking Moscow.  Forget Nukes, just a straight out raid.  Saipan to Tokyo is roughly 2500km.  Go to google earth and take a line 2500 km long line and see just how many directions the US could launch from (hint Norway to Iraq).  The Red air force was never forced to protect all that terrain.  Protect the oil, protect Moscow, protect the rail yards......  choices choices..... oh crap we forgot to protect the artillery park.....  A significant portion of the factories from the Ukraine went to the Caucasus.  Imagine when those carriers show up with some 2000 combat aircraft....

 

I am not sure where you heard differently about artillery  - take the below with a grain of salt, however it is consistent with material I have read on German experience in the west.  Considering it is subjective and hearsay I doubt we'll be able to establish a convincing case either way.

https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-German-soldiers-of-WWII-think-of-British-US-Canadian-and-Soviet-soldiers

Soviet artillery did not receive the kind of respect British and American gunners did, because despite the Soviets being able and willing to mass vast quantities of guns and munitions to support attacks, the lack of radios and trained forward observers (typically officers, and thus a victim of Stalin’s purges) meant that Soviet artillery had no flexibility or responsiveness. There was no ability to adjust fire, no ability to call in sudden support. Once a fire program was set, generally days in advance, there was no changing it. When the Germans learned of a coming attack, which they regularly did thanks to a well-trained radio intercept service that had many personnel fluent in Russian, as well a limited number of Russian radios, generally belonging to higher headquarters, to listen for, some German commanders would simply have their troops vacate their positions immediately prior to the attack, letting the Soviets waste their lengthy preparatory barrage on an empty position. When the barrage lifted, the Germans, waiting just beyond the zone of fire, would re-infiltrate their own position, taking the new Soviet occupiers by surprise and driving them out with heavy losses. Sometimes, this scenario would unfold several times in a row in the fight for a given defensive line, because even when the Soviets understood what was happening, their was nothing they could do about it.

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

39 minutes ago, sburke said:

My argument is more focused on the sheer logistical juggernaut the Russians would face.

Which argument I have, by & large, agreed with, if you recall. 

Part of the issue here is that I seem to be expected to defend statements that I didn't actually make.

39 minutes ago, sburke said:

I am not sure where you heard differently about artillery

I'll see if I can find the quote. 

39 minutes ago, sburke said:

Saipan to Tokyo is roughly 2500km. 

It's not that simple, you can't have everything at once, not even with the mighty B-29:

Bombs:

• 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) over 1,600 mi (2,600 km; 1,400 nmi) radius at high altitude^[83]
• 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) over 1,600 mi (2,600 km; 1,400 nmi) radius at medium altitude^[83]
• 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) maximum over short distances at low altitude^[83]
• Could be modified to carry two 22,000 lb (10.0 t) Grand Slam bombs externally.^[83]

PS - I never knew the B-29 could carry Grand-Slam.....You learn something new every day! 
 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It's not that simple, you can't have everything at once, even with the mighty B-29:

Bombs:

• 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) over 1,600 mi (2,600 km; 1,400 nmi) radius at high altitude^[83]
• 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) over 1,600 mi (2,600 km; 1,400 nmi) radius at medium altitude^[83]
• 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) maximum over short distances at low altitude^[83]
• Could be modified to carry two 22,000 lb (10.0 t) Grand Slam bombs externally.^[83]

yeah really sucks that they could only drop 5,000 lbs of bomb per bomber on Moscow taking off from anywhere from Norway to Iraq... and oh wait, they weren't going to Moscow, turns out they were going to the Baku oilfields and were carrying incendiaries.....    Point is that the US airforce was capable of reaching out to ANY target up to and including Moscow.  What the target would be ......  so what does the Red Air force do?  Disperse?

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

so what does the Red Air force do?  Disperse?

Use radar and defend the most likely targets, the same as everybody else, I'd expect.

 

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Use radar and defend the most likely targets, the same as everybody else, I'd expect.

 

Really?  Who is everybody else?  Germany and Japan?  I don't think they fared too well.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Once again you are trying to drive home a point that's not being contested.....I'm beginning to wonder what your angle is? 

 

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Once again you are trying to drive home a point that's not being contested.....I'm beginning to wonder what your angle is? 

most people when they are not contesting a point say something like, yeah I agree, or true, or something to show they actually agree.  they don't present counters or alternate data etc etc.  My angle now is to bow out of this as I am confused now as to what the point of this is.. other than to say I think we all want CMRT units in CMFB... likely won't ever see it, but what the heck.

 

[DMS]

6 hours ago, sburke said:

According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:

I should note that Boris Vadimovich Sokolov is a bad source. He has a reputation of a freak. Like Suvorov-Rezun. Historian troll.

By the way, supply lines were critical as Red army attacked and used echelones of artillery rounds. And what if U.S. army had to break through to Poland and further to the East? Were U.S. armored divisions as superior, as panzer divisions in 41? Shermans instead of Panthers, BARs instead of Mg-42...

[Ales Dvorak]

5 hours ago, sburke said:

 I don't care if Russia supplied Tito with tanks,. the question was who's side would Tito fight for if Russia went to war with the allies.  He wasn't exactly enamored with Russia. Neutrality is the most likely option.  Though he did actually fight the allies in some skirmishes after the end of the war.  That is different than actually declaring war though.

Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from November 1942 until April 1992. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he became the first Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony in 1948 and the only one in Joseph Stalin's time to manage to leave Cominform and begin with its own socialist program with elements of market socialism.

 

Don't forget Yugoslavia was one of the leaders of nonaligned countries. ( I think this was Tito's genius move for peace & money )

Edited January 16, 2018 by Ales Dvorak

[Vergeltungswaffe]

26 minutes ago, DMS said:

And what if U.S. army had to break through to Poland and further to the East? Were U.S. armored divisions as superior, as panzer divisions in 41? Shermans instead of Panthers, BARs instead of Mg-42...

US troops with Shermans and BAR's crushed German troops with Panthers and MG-42s, so,...yeah.

[DMS]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Soviet artillery did not receive the kind of respect British and American gunners did, because despite the Soviets being able and willing to mass vast quantities of guns and munitions to support attacks, the lack of radios and trained forward observers (typically officers, and thus a victim of Stalin’s purges) meant that Soviet artillery had no flexibility or responsiveness. There was no ability to adjust fire, no ability to call in sudden support. Once a fire program was set, generally days in advance, there was no changing it.

False. In 44 1-st echelone company typically had a forward observer from a battery. With radios or with wired links, they provided artillery support. Though, at average, Soviet artillery was less flexible during the war.

Just now, Vergeltungswaffe said:

US troops with Shermans and BAR's crushed German troops with Panthers and MG-42s, so,...yeah.

Weakened German troops of the year 1944, not full strength formations with well trained 1940 veterans like in 1941.

Edited January 16, 2018 by DMS

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

most people when they are not contesting a point say something like, yeah I agree, or true, or something to show they actually agree.

I did, repeatedly, but apparently you didn't notice:

7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

As for your perspective, I'm not arguing with any of it.....But it still doesn't mean Enola Gay could just cruise over Red Square unmolested, in 1945 or 1948. 

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I wouldn't argue about the probable end result of the conflict, but I think you might be a bit out on the timescale, Russia has proven remarkably resilient to conquest over the ages.

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Which argument I have, by & large, agreed with, if you recall. 

etc. etc.

1 hour ago, sburke said:

My angle now is to bow out of this as I am confused now as to what the point of this is.. other than to say I think we all want CMRT units in CMFB... likely won't ever see it, but what the heck.

On all of that I think we can agree.