Jump to content
Ridaz

Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, DMS said:

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...

yeah didn't know his rep, but I have heard of Stalin, Kruschev and Zhukov so the point I think it well supported even outside that guy.

How about Medvedev, Zhores A? 

Looking up his bio seems reputable and I love that quote true or not.  LOL  

Saw your correction.  Yeah I would say the US armored Division was a better asset (caveat I am a total armchair historian with no credentials or experience).  Why?  Because it had the logistical support to do what it needed to do.  The Panther was hands down a better tank in the purely tactical sense, but that didn't help which is why I don't sweat this "Russia had these huge tanks that would chew up the US armor".  The tank is only part of the equation and the thrashing that the US and France gave to the brigades Germany fielded in the Lorraine shows what happens when you use good equipment poorly.

Now going east.. the one item that gives me a different view of the western allies versus the German experience is again logistical.  The allies could supply their armies through the Baltic ports and do so on a scale Germany could never have conceived of.  A thrust through Estonia etc towards St Petersburg would not have the same logistical train issue that Germany faced.

The US could also consider opening a second front through the Crimea using naval assets from the Pacific.  Again doing supply in a way Germany could never consider.  It would be a different war against an adversary with far different capabilities than Germany.  No offense to the Russian Military and it's achievements, but I don't think it would stand a chance. The western allies fought major wars on opposite sides of the globe.  Concentrating those assets towards one adversary would have been overwhelming.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sburke said:

yeah didn't know his rep, but I have heard of Stalin, Kruschev and Zhukov so the point I think it well supported even outside that guy.

How about Medvedev, Zhores A? 

Looking up his bio seems reputable and I love that quote true or not.  LOL  

Saw your correction.  Yeah I would say the US armored Division was a better asset (caveat I am a total armchair historian with no credentials or experience).  Why?  Because it had the logistical support to do what it needed to do.  The Panther was hands down a better tank in the purely tactical sense, but that didn't help which is why I don't sweat this "Russia had these huge tanks that would chew up the US armor".  The tank is only part of the equation and the thrashing that the US and France gave to the brigades Germany fielded in the Lorraine shows what happens when you use good equipment poorly.

Now going east.. the one item that gives me a different view of the western allies versus the German experience is again logistical.  The allies could supply their armies through the Baltic ports and do so on a scale Germany could never have conceived of.  A thrust through Estonia etc towards St Petersburg would not have the same logistical train issue that Germany faced.

The US could also consider opening a second front through the Crimea using naval assets from the Pacific.  Again doing supply in a way Germany could never consider.  It would be a different war against an adversary with far different capabilities than Germany.  No offense to the Russian Military and it's achievements, but I don't think it would stand a chance. The western allies fought major wars on opposite sides of the globe.  Concentrating those assets towards one adversary would have been overwhelming.

Stalin and Zhukov are credible sources, I think. :)

You may think, that if Russian historian admits something negative to USSR, than it is 100% true. But, as you know, Russia turned ideology in 1991 and official version now is that "war won thanks to lend-lease , Red army fought bad, war won thanks only to individual heroism of soldiers" e.t.c. Russian historian who praises lend lease most likely is not a neutral researcher, but a conformist. In 1980 he would write about heroism of colonel Breznev, in 2010 he writes about deceisive lend lease role. They are not worth referring, I think.

Imagine fighting for every town from Berlin to Warsaw, in every favourable position. Not against outnumbered Germans, but against roughly equal foe. Veterans would be killed in battles, equipment would wore out, new divisions, arriving in Europe, would be not so well equiped as those, who landed in 1944. It would be hard to explain people why to fight against communistic Russia, I don't think that U.S. soldiers would fight house to house like Germans in Stalingrad, who fought for Lebensraum against Untermenchen. To die for making Poland capitalistic, not communistic? So even if RKKA would stay in defense, out of fuel and ammo, it wouldn't be easy for ex-allies. And what if Soviet offense would start before supplies would be limited by bombing? B-17 don't stop tank columns. Il-2 do. I guess, surprise factor was deceisive. Who attacks, destroys airfields and goes deep in enemy territory first - gains advantage.

Yes, transferring CMFB units to CMRT would be intersting, I guess! With war in Korea module coming next.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

The Soviets had a demonstrated advantage in the jet department as was shown in Korea

Soviets were given a considerable headstart beginning in '46 with the sale of British RR Nene jet engines.

A total of twenty-five Nenes were sold to the Soviet Union as a gesture of goodwill - with reservation to not use for military purposes - with the agreement of Stafford Cripps. Rolls-Royce were given permission in September 1946 to sell 10 Nene engines to the USSR, and in March 1947 to sell a further 15. The price was fixed under a commercial contract. A total of 55 jet engines were sold to the Soviets in 1947. The Soviets reneged on the deal after the Cold War broke out in 1947, and reverse engineered the Nene to develop the Klimov RD-45, and a larger version, the Klimov VK-1, which soon appeared in various Soviet fighters including Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15.

And the Soviets first flight of reverse enginereered B-29 copy Tu-4 took place in 1947 delayed only it seems by self-imposed bureaucracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, c3k said:

US vs. Soviet Union air forces: I've played "Mig Alley". US wins. 'nuff said.

;)

In War thunder Mig climbs better, but Sabre turns faster! It is a difficult question! Serious researcher should play DCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine a situation in 1945 where the Western Allies actually push Soviet forces back and drive on Warsaw.  With the scale of the forces arrayed against each other for both sides the most likely outcome in my opinion, for several months, would be a sort of shifting stalemate until one side or the other wore down enough to make a difference.  I doubt if the soldiers of either side would have had very much enthusiasm for fighting an entirely new war against a dangerous and veteran foe.  I think most soldiers from both sides were probably ready to go home happy that they survived as long as they did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

I can't imagine a situation in 1945 where the Western Allies actually push Soviet forces back and drive on Warsaw.  With the scale of the forces arrayed against each other for both sides the most likely outcome in my opinion, for several months, would be a sort of shifting stalemate until one side or the other wore down enough to make a difference.  I doubt if the soldiers of either side would have had very much enthusiasm for fighting an entirely new war against a dangerous and veteran foe.  I think most soldiers from both sides were probably ready to go home happy that they survived as long as they did. 

Defeatist ASL Vet :-)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/42713742/last-british-dambuster-i-d-do-it-again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

I can't imagine a situation in 1945 where the Western Allies actually push Soviet forces back and drive on Warsaw.  With the scale of the forces arrayed against each other for both sides the most likely outcome in my opinion, for several months, would be a sort of shifting stalemate until one side or the other wore down enough to make a difference.  I doubt if the soldiers of either side would have had very much enthusiasm for fighting an entirely new war against a dangerous and veteran foe.  I think most soldiers from both sides were probably ready to go home happy that they survived as long as they did. 

Sounds familiar.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

I can't imagine a situation in 1945 where the Western Allies actually push Soviet forces back and drive on Warsaw.  With the scale of the forces arrayed against each other for both sides the most likely outcome in my opinion, for several months, would be a sort of shifting stalemate until one side or the other wore down enough to make a difference.  I doubt if the soldiers of either side would have had very much enthusiasm for fighting an entirely new war against a dangerous and veteran foe.  I think most soldiers from both sides were probably ready to go home happy that they survived as long as they did. 

Finally the voice of wisdom and reason sounds above the testosterone :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×