Jump to content

German losses vs. West and East


coe

Recommended Posts

BD - It was you that claimed that the Luftwaffe had absolute supremacy over the Soviet hinterland back on page 8

"Over the Eastern Front, it was impossible.

It is easy for single aircraft to roam over such a large front and hunt down vehicles.

That is why some ground attack pilots managed to destroy hundreds of vehicles."

You are talking in circles

Originally posted by blue division:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

9. How it was that tens of thousands of Soviet-built trucks were destroyed by German direct fire during the course of the war, seeing as BD argues "US trucks were used at the front, USSR ones in the rear."?

12. Why does Max Hastings qualify as a political journalist?

Point 12 - do you know who Max Hastings is?

Point 9 - what is your point? I am assuming there is one actually. [/QB]</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Wicky:

BD - It was you that claimed that the Luftwaffe had absolute supremacy over the Soviet hinterland back on page 8

"Over the Eastern Front, it was impossible.

It is easy for single aircraft to roam over such a large front and hunt down vehicles.

That is why some ground attack pilots managed to destroy hundreds of vehicles."

Wicky,

I did not say that they had absolute air superiority over Russia. Please re-read what was said and you will see this is true.

Besides, I don't think anyone has ever had 'absolute supremacy' over Russia - even to this day. The USAF still has the abiltiy to overfly Russia if it so chooses.

An interesting thread, but you need to clarify your ideas before presenting them, and not using my postings to bounce them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BD me boy,

Max Hastings wrote among other books Overlord, which is one of the definitive English-language histories of the Normandy/France 1944 campaign, and why the Wehrmacht combat effectivness was so high.

He also wrote a right fine book on the Korean War detailing the same sort of combat capacity balancing between UN forces and the Red Chinese, and he wrote another book with Simon Jennings on the Falklands War. Hastings was a war correspondent in the Falklands.

I know that because have read those books. Also das Reich. You may remember as I ask you from time to time have you Blue Division read Max Hastings' "Das Reich" yourself.

On point 9, remember, you claimed the Red Army used the foreign trucks in the front lines, and the Soviet-made trucks in the rear.

I know that is wrong, because I have read a good bit of Soviet history and talked to more than a few Soviet war veterans. So I am challenging your assertation as baseless. Also groundless, immature, poorly-thought-out, and quite possibly invented. :D

I am pointing out your error with a question, to wit, how can you argue Soviet trucks never made it to the front lines, when tens of thousands were destroyed by German direct fire?

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

See how easy it is to answer questions? You asked, and within a couple of hours I answered you.

Which is a good deal different from the Blue Division unanwered question list, which is growing and growing and growing. I mean, jeez, how hard can it be for a person to admit he didn't read a book?

I know Blue Division is sensitive to personal references, but IMHO his refusal to respond to even the most basic inquiries could be described as "weaseling".

Now, if I were to drop in on an internet forum and within a week or so find out people are using terms like "troll" and "weasel" to describe my comments on that forum, I personally would reconsider my remarks. Seeing as I am human and fallible and all. But that's just me.

As to the BD list, growing and growing and growing, we may take on Peng in a bit...

Questions Blue Division Refuses to Answer:

1. Which fronts it was Khruschev commanded?

2. What exactly were the command errors Khruschev committed during the Rzhev/Mars operation?

3. How it was Khruschev managed to interfere in the Rzhev/Mars operation, considering his own memoirs say he was at Stalingrad at the time?

4. The difference between a Soviet front and a Soviet field army?

5. Why the Soviet tool industry was incapable of manufacturing a truck?

6. If that was the case, who was it that made the Zil and GAZ series of wheeled cargo vehicles?

7. Whether BD read "Das Reich" by Max Hastings?

8. Whether BD read ANY book by David Glantz?

9. How it was that tens of thousands of Soviet-built trucks were destroyed by German direct fire during the course of the war, seeing as BD argues "US trucks were used at the front, USSR ones in the rear."?

10. Why Soviet cavalry pants have floppy thighs?

11. Where is the web site that will tell me why Soviet cavalry pants have floppy thighs?

12. Why does Max Hastings qualify as a political journalist?

13. If Russia was so huge that it was "easy for single aircraft to roam over such a large front and hunt down vehicles", how did single airplanes even FIND vehicles to attack, considering Russia was so big?

14. What is it about the cavalry pants question that troubles you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a list of Big Duke's posts is probably in order now.

Modern armies dont need to be kept in supply. ('Remember, the Red Army had a "throwaway unit" mentality very different from the German or western Allied approach. ')

As is was solely the Russian infantryman who did all the work in the advances in 1944, so we can ignore supply issues for artillery and armour / motorized troops - (The [infantryman] only thing he could reasonably expect from his supply channel was ammunition and a tiny bit of medical, and then only if higher had decided he needed it.)

Trucks were not used to resupply the advances in 1944 (The idea that U.S. Studebaker trucks sustained Red Army combat advances with sort of an East Front version of the Redball express has no basis in fact.

)

Throw in Stalingrad, as if this is pertinent to the battles of 1944 (What about Stalingrad?

)

Throw in some thoughts from a political journalist in the UK (Max Hastings' book Overlord is pretty good on the subject.).

Assert that good ideologically sound Bolshevik armies somehow rise above the need to be resupplied. Using there sound socialist principles, they rise above such bourgeoise concepts as eating and fueling their vehicles. (My point is, trucks are spiffy for piling up supply prior to an offensive, but once it kicks off they're a good deal less important to a Soviet army than an western one.)

The use of subtle semantic changes when things aren't going right (I would not call the Soviet supply situation at Stalingrad outstanding. )

And putting words into peoples mouths (precisely when you say the Soviets were incapable of significant mobile operations.) There are a lot of these, so I just list the first one.

"Next, you argue with yourself (this is my favourite) : (1943: The Germans were sure no Soviet defence could hold out against a concentrated panzer attack. Further, they were convinced that even if things went wrong the Soviets had neither the resources nor the brains to organize a counteroffensive.

Wrong yet again. The attacks at Kursk stalled, and then the Soviets counterattacked with an entire front. Germans lose half of Ukraine."

And on to Glantz, of which BigDuke attributes magical, almost other-wordly properties, you will suddenly 'see the light '(I can't respond to what you say without repeating what I have said. I strongly urge you to read Glantz's "Clash of Titans" if you want to get a better picture of the Red Army,)

Now one of my favourites - a team of engineers laying railroad track can keep up with a moving truck. Yes, you read it here first. (If there's one thing the Russians had an endless supply of, it's more wood for railroad sleepers and laborers to cut it and then lay the rails. )

Next completely contradict your argument on how the Red Army doesn't need suppliers (This all took place under conditions of "scorched earth". So obviously somehow the Soviets figured out a way to not just move the materials, but also the men and machines and the supplies to keep them working.

)

Discount the reality of the destruction caused in Western Russia by the Nazi invasion, recounted by many, many historians and observers (I think you are overestimating the German ability to "scorch the earth." )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BD,

Answer the questions, pardner. Longer and longer.

1. Which fronts it was Khruschev commanded?

2. What exactly were the command errors Khruschev committed during the Rzhev/Mars operation?

3. How it was Khruschev managed to interfere in the Rzhev/Mars operation, considering his own memoirs say he was at Stalingrad at the time?

4. The difference between a Soviet front and a Soviet field army?

5. Why the Soviet tool industry was incapable of manufacturing a truck?

6. If that was the case, who was it that made the Zil and GAZ series of wheeled cargo vehicles?

7. Whether BD read "Das Reich" by Max Hastings?

8. Whether BD read ANY book by David Glantz?

9. How it was that tens of thousands of Soviet-built trucks were destroyed by German direct fire during the course of the war, seeing as BD argues "US trucks were used at the front, USSR ones in the rear."?

10. Why Soviet cavalry pants have floppy thighs?

11. Where is the web site that will tell me why Soviet cavalry pants have floppy thighs?

12. Why does Max Hastings qualify as a political journalist?

13. If Russia was so huge that it was "easy for single aircraft to roam over such a large front and hunt down vehicles", how did single airplanes even FIND vehicles to attack, considering Russia was so big?

14. What is it about the cavalry pants question that troubles you?

15. Do you speak Russian or German?

16. Have you ever visited Russia?

17. Have you ever talked to an East Front veteran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I know Blue Division is sensitive to personal references, but IMHO his refusal to respond to even the most basic inquiries could be described as "weaseling".

Now, if I were to drop in on an internet forum and within a week or so find out people are using terms like "troll" and "weasel" to describe my comments on that forum, I personally would reconsider my remarks. Seeing as I am human and fallible and all. But that's just me.

I think that this is actually a much bigger reflection on you.

Somehow, though, I doubt if you even stop to consider this yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by blue division:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

Or, alternatively, it was horsefeathers, as you've just moved the goal posts. We've gone from US trucks being the only ones available to being the only ones at the front.

The US trucks were the only ones that could have been reliable enough and have the off road capability to suit the military. They also didn't burn 1/4 gallon oil for every 1 gallon diesel.

</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blue division:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

Or, alternatively, it was horsefeathers, as you've just moved the goal posts. We've gone from US trucks being the only ones available to being the only ones at the front.

The US trucks were the only ones that could have been reliable enough and have the off road capability to suit the military. They also didn't burn 1/4 gallon oil for every 1 gallon diesel.

</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Andreas,

For the record the Soviets manufactured the heavy-load trucks you are talking about. The main marks as far as I know were:

ZiS-5V - a six-wheel, two-axle vehicle

ZiS-151 - a ten-wheel, three-axle vehicle

GAZ-AAA - a ten-wheel, three-axle vehicle

My understanding was that it was a question of how many axles were driven that made the difference. Were the big Soviet ones 6x6, 6x4 or 6x2 (is there such a thing?). I take it the small one is a 4x2?

AIUI at least some of the US trucks delivered to the Soviets were 6x6, and most were 6x4 or 4x4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by flamingknives:

My google-senses tell me that the ZiS 5V was a 4x2 (having four wheels on the rear axle doesn't count as a 6-wheeler, IMO)

The ZiS-151 was post war, and as such doesn't count.

The GAZ-AAA comes out to be a 6x4, produced from '38 -'43.

It would be interesting to look at the production schedules of individual plants. Since the Soviets turned the automobile factories over to producing light tanks and assault guns early in the war (T-60, then T-70, from 1943 SU-76), it is surprising that they stopped producing the Gaz-AA just when common sense says they would need it, but maybe less so when one considers that the Gaz factory produced the SU-76. My guess is that at this stage they did not feel the need to continue their own production of heavy off-road capable trucks once they knew they could get the US trucks. It made more sense to produce lots of SU-76 and lend-lease trucks.

This would go even further in showing that US trucks were not really such a critical item - if they had not been there, all the Soviets would have done was to produce fewer Su-76, and fill the capacity with Gaz-AA to improve mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas,

The reading I have done on the subject confirms your guesses. The main logic driving it was the Soviet priority on making things that shoot, as opposed to things that carry things for things that shoot.

That said, I bet rubber supplies were a factor. The Soves had basically all the raw material for steel and plastics they could want, but rubber had to be imported and that of course you GAZ isn't so useful without tires! :(

On the axle count vs. mobility angle, my personal experience is/was that, as a practical matter, if you have more axles on a truck that's always because the truck is designed to carry more load. The vehicle is basically always heavier, and heavier without compensation somewhere else is always worse if you're tying to keep from getting stuck.

Obviously more axles helps if the weight is evenly distributed, i.e., with one of those spiffy German armored cars. But with trucks as a rule anyway if you have 2-3 axles at the rear, it's because the machine is designed to move a heavy load and part of that is a reinforced bed, and again that's weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correspondence between Stalin and Roosevelt, discussing the specific Soviet requirements for Lend-Lease.

'Sent on August 22, 1942

J. V. STALIN TO F. ROOSEVELT

With reference to what you say about the despatch of tanks and other strategic materials from the United States in August I should like to emphasize our special interest in receiving U.S. aircraft and other weapons, as well as trucks in the greatest numbers possible. '

'FROM PREMIER STALIN TO THE PRESIDENT, Mr. ROOSEVELT

October 7, 1942

It would be very good if the U.S.A. could ensure the monthly delivery of at least the following items: 500 fighters, 8,000 to 10,000 trucks , 5,000 tons of aluminium, and 4,000 to 5,000 tons of explosives. Besides, we need, within 12 months, two million tons of grain (wheat) and as much as we can have of fats, concentrated foods and canned meat. '

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more wheels you have, the more contact points with the ground you have and the less chance you have of the truck tipping over onto its side when negotiating uneven terrain.

If you are looking at six wheel drive vehicles, they also allow you to keep making progress in difficult conditions. Of course, stopping is no easier with the all wheel drive. (I am assuming that a truck called a '6x6' has six wheels, six of which have drive supplied to them).

I believe a a lot of the Studebaker's came with a winch on the front that was powerful enough to pull the truck out of mud. (Of course you need a fixed point to attach it to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone still cares: Glantz adresses the truck issue in his latest book, pp.353-356.

According to him, lend-lease and/or russian trucks are not that important between 1941 and 1943, at least on the operational level. They are useful on the tactical level, though.

After 1943, trucks will play a more important role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by soft skin:

If anyone still cares: Glantz adresses the truck issue in his latest book, pp.353-356.

According to him, lend-lease and/or russian trucks are not that important between 1941 and 1943, at least on the operational level. They are useful on the tactical level, though.

After 1943, trucks will play a more important role.

Good 'ol Glantz! He is nothing if not consistent.

If you scroll WAY back on this thread, I posted a link to the actual Lend Lease truck numbers. Bottom line: around half the trucks came arrived in the last year of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...