Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coe

German losses vs. West and East

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by flamingknives:

As for intediction, Allied air superiority in NWE was total and men and materiel was still moved by train. [Edit: Stopping those damn terrorists]

Oh dear...

Can someone else talk to this man about the Allied interdiction effort and it's effect on the German Army in NWE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

The US army in Iraq is fighting a different sort of war. Use of railway lines would be impossible given the level of insurgency. This was not the case for the red army.

[Edit: Stopping those damn terrorists]

Thank you for proving my point. I said railways are too easy to interdict, you have just reinforced my point a thousand fold. If one guy with a spanner can derail a train, think what you can do with an Army and Airforce.

Case closed.

Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy with a spanner can't derail a train. A bunch with an IED can. An insurgent is hard to counteract as you can't see him and he lives alongside the railway.

The comparison with NWE is still valid. In the face of total allied air superiority the rail network still operated, albeit under harsh conditions. By contrast, the control of the air on the eastern front was far more contested, so it follows that rail traffic would be less molested under such conditions.

So perhaps you can point me to the huge Soviet motor industry of the 1930's.

Right alongside their massive tank building industry. they relocated a military industry to safety across the Urals. How much harder is it to adapt machine tools to build trucks rather than tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one thing is for sure, if Khruschev had been in charge of the Allied interdiction effort in Northwest Europe, instead of many Red Army Fronts, those Germans would have had no chance to move material along the French rail system. We all know what a command stud Khruschev was. :eek:

BTW Khruschev was a big fan of trains and liked to ride them. And for good reason - he could fit into them better than into Tiger tanks. And what's more, your standard Soviet "big shot" train had plenty of closet space, so Khruschev had a place to hang up his snappy field marshal uniforms. :cool:

Of course he may have had some trouble actually finding the Red Army fronts he was in charge of, as their numbers appear to have been a big secret, known only to Blue Division.

As to the Allied transportation interdiction effort in Europe, any one interested might want to read Max Hasting's "Das Reich". It's about the 2nd SS' move to Normandy. Allied air and French resistance/terrorist tried to stop them - but failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

One guy with a spanner can't derail a train. A bunch with an IED can. An insurgent is hard to counteract as you can't see him and he lives alongside the railway.

WRONG.

If I go out tonight with a spanner and remove all of the bolts on one of the rails on a bend, the train will derail. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So perhaps you can point me to the huge Soviet motor industry of the 1930's.

Right alongside their massive tank building industry. they relocated a military industry to safety across the Urals. How much harder is it to adapt machine tools to build trucks rather than tanks? </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Bigduke6:

As to the Allied transportation interdiction effort in Europe, any one interested might want to read Max Hasting's "Das Reich". It's about the 2nd SS' move to Normandy. Allied air and French resistance/terrorist tried to stop them - but failed.

If you knew anything about airpower at all and its use in interdiction, you would know that it can only slow down the enemy realistically.

Which is what it did in France.

If you want to use a source, please understand it first. Otherwise there is no point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Bigduke6:

BTW Khruschev was a big fan of trains and liked to ride them. And for good reason - he could fit into them better than into Tiger tanks. And what's more, your standard Soviet "big shot" train had plenty of closet space, so Khruschev had a place to hang up his snappy field marshal uniforms. :cool:

Khruschev, like the Stalin was a big fan of trains actually. They thought they were safer as there was less chance of sabotage.

Please read a Soviet history of the second world war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Bigduke6:

so Khruschev had a place to hang up his snappy field marshal uniforms. :cool:

He was a political commissar, and as such wore a pretty plain and dour uniform.

Please read a history of the Soviet Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

The comparison with NWE is still valid. In the face of total allied air superiority the rail network still operated, albeit under harsh conditions. By contrast, the control of the air on the eastern front was far more contested, so it follows that rail traffic would be less molested under such conditions.

ROFL.

Do you realise how many vehicles were destroyed by the Luftwaffe?

If you would stop to think for a minute, you would realise that the larger the area you need to control with airpower, the more difficult it is. Over Normandy it took a massive effort to completely deny the air to the Luftwaffe.

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.

Please read up on this.

Your point is totally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BD, I am glad to hear you have read "Das Reich" and so are in a position to make an intelligent comment on the book...wait, you HAVE read the book, right? :eek:

Now if Nikita Khruschev had been driving the German supply trucks in Northwest Europe, there would be no need for the railroad. After all, he had those really cool baggy cavalry pants just ideal for long drives behind the wheel of a Studebaker.

So actually it is historically clear that German supply problems on the West Front were due to Nikita Khruschev's misemployment. As we know, he commanded several Red Army Fronts, whose numbers remain nameless. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by blue division:

ROFL.

Do you realise how many vehicles were destroyed by the Luftwaffe?

[snips]

I don't have hard figures. Perhaps you could funish me with them?

So. In NWE, a small area compared to the Russian front, the Allies had complete air superiority and were free to use CAS as much as they liked - control of the air was kept by deidcated fighters as much as a secondry role for CAS. In any case, in NWE:

* The location of the railways were known.

* The countryside was crawling with local insugents.

* There were large numbers of fighter-bombers roving over a comparitively small area tasked with denying enemy movement.

The Germans, despite this, were able to move units about by train.

And the car industry requires masses of specialised tooling does it? Completely unlike any other automotive product like tanks and tractors?

If you'd taken the time to look at my profile, you'll note that I am an engineer. If you've got the basic machinery, you can make whatever else you need. Off hand, the only thing used in the automotive industry that is not so evident in more agricultural settings is presswork. But then thats not so different from net shape forging.

Given that they already had stripped right down and built right up again, that they could have built something that looked like a truck and acted like a truck is not beyond the realm of human comprension. Even if it was a tractor with a trailer, it would do the same thing. Too slow? A new gearbox shouldn't be too difficult, even for the backwards Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

Given that they already had stripped right down and built right up again, that they could have built something that looked like a truck and acted like a truck is not beyond the realm of human comprension. Even if it was a tractor with a trailer, it would do the same thing. Too slow? A new gearbox shouldn't be too difficult, even for the backwards Russians.

Oh my god....

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Bigduke6:

BD, I am glad to hear you have read "Das Reich" and so are in a position to make an intelligent comment on the book...wait, you HAVE read the book, right? :eek:

Now if Nikita Khruschev had been driving the German supply trucks in Northwest Europe, there would be no need for the railroad. After all, he had those really cool baggy cavalry pants just ideal for long drives behind the wheel of a Studebaker.

So actually it is historically clear that German supply problems on the West Front were due to Nikita Khruschev's misemployment. As we know, he commanded several Red Army Fronts, whose numbers remain nameless. :confused:

Is this a response?

Please raise your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

If you'd taken the time to look at my profile, you'll note that I am an engineer. If you've got the basic machinery, you can make whatever else you need. Off hand, the only thing used in the automotive industry that is not so evident in more agricultural settings is presswork. But then thats not so different from net shape forging.

You watch to many Hollywood movies - perhaps 'Flight of the Phoenix'?

Can you make say a mach - 2 jet, how about an Abrams tank?

Better still, what about a Boeing 747.

I have a lathe in the shed, I can get it out and make a helicopter.

By your reasoning, just because you are an engineer and can say you can do it, it is possible.

There is no logic in your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

Even if it was a tractor with a trailer, it would do the same thing. Too slow? A new gearbox shouldn't be too difficult, even for the backwards Russians.

FlamingKnives has the Red Army driving about on tractors, everyone.

A bit like the move 'The Straight Story' - you know, the one with the old man who travels hundreds of miles on freeways on his LAWNMOWER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On railways:

see

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq109-5.htm

German Commander-in-Chief West, Field Marshal Karl R. Gerd von Rundstedt's Report on the Allied Invasion of Normandy

'Railroad transport ... has been reduced to a certain minimum, can scarcely be brought nearer than 200-250 kilometers from the front '

Please now post one of your little 'jokes' (I use the word loosely, as they aren't funny in the slightest) about Khruschev. Go on ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than slightly perplexed by this. As an engineer, one might expect me to know about engineering. In fact, you asked what I knew about engineering, so I gave that as an answer. I know other engineers who've made clocks with just a lathe - what tools they need, they make.

Please, with your obviously vast engineering knowledge, explain the tools and technology that make trucks so vastly more difficult to manufacture than tanks, guns etc? Remember that it doesn't need to be a specific truck, just like a truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

I'm more than slightly perplexed by this. As an engineer, one might expect me to know about engineering. In fact, you asked what I knew about engineering, so I gave that as an answer. I know other engineers who've made clocks with just a lathe - what tools they need, they make.

Do you whittle, FlamingKnives?

Do you hum 'whittle away' whilst doing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by flamingknives:

Oh, and according to this web page, the Red Army had 100,000 indigenous trucks in service in 1941.

YES! Back of the net!

Looks like trucks ARE important now.

Your argument has been eroded, and now you are pointing completely the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'In the early 1930’s the U.S. helped lay the foundations for a formidable Soviet truck production capability. During the war, Soviet production efforts were augmented through lend-lease aid. In terms of truck usage, U.S. lend-lease trucks generally went directly to front line combat units. Soviet built trucks were generally used in rear areas. Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Studebaker, etc., all could be found on the eastern front. The Soviet Union ended the Second World War by having over 650.000 trucks available for use. Of those, 58% were Soviet in origin, 33% British or U.S. and the remaining percentage captured from the Germans.'

From :

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

Keep it coming...

Share this post


Link to post
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
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...