Tripps

Probably not. Tanks. T34/85 more or less equal to M4 easy eight in fighting power/mobility. M4 is far more reliable (force multiplier). JS2 probably somewhat better than M26 in firepower and protection, but Pershing better in fire control and ROF. The Centurian would have also made and appearance in the proposed scenario. Firefly would have done well. WAs far better in keeping tanks running. Infantry mobility. Not even close. WA mechanized to very large degree. Infantry equipment. Probably on par except in radios. Would start to change as war went on since some soviet kit was lend lease (boots for example). WAs had better infantry AT. Arty. Quality of guns, ammo, and fire control with WAs. </font>

I dont know the figures, but I wouldnt have thought the German Airforce in mid-end 1944 would have amounted to much. When I say that, I mean the difference in numbers with Russia, and the fact Russia will have enough gas for them all So even taking this, (that the W.A. clean the skies of Russian fighters) it would take much longer yes? Maybe three - four times as long? By then, my theory is, the Russians will have accomplished their aim, and conquered W.E. I dont know the figures, but I would find it hard to believe the Luftwaffe had all their planes only in the western theatre, so to say the Red Airforce had a easy go at it while the W.A. had to fight it out, sounds a bit out. So the reverse argument to answer your question, would the W.A. Airforce duplicate their feats against the Red Airforce? I thought we had come to a consensus that both air-forces would pretty much negate each other? The comments about lavish ammo and 4-5 tanks for every German one, great, but they wouldnt be fighting the Germans anymore would they, they would be fighting the Red Army, that had something like a 3-1 figure in numbers over the W.A. They lacked all that because nothing could bomb the Urals! They only place they can bomb as far as i can see, that effects production, is the oil fields, so how much time is involved getting all those high level bombers, and all their appropriate equipment, staff, supply lines etc, to a place where it can actually bomb there? I would hazard a guess the Russians would be using this time to develope high altitude fighters. Granted it might take a while... Oh I dont know, your argument above states that the W.A. airforce would clean the skies in a few months of the Russian Airforce, which is almost on comparitable numbers/exprience and supply, so I dont see why you cannot comprehend a Russian army, what, 3 times as big? tearing a few ardennes into the W.A. armies, only with more equipment, their own gas, and led by commanders who had been doing this successfully the last couple years. yeah, poo-poo's to you, ya no-fun realist You play CM yeah? They are all hypothetical battles, you think every battle was a 3000 point ME? So discuss or no. I'm not even going to get into the whole horrible waste issue, war is, its a given.

Do you have the name of this movie?

I'll grant that supply would have been easier after Germany was knocked out, to get supplies to Europe. So maybe that did mis-read a little. And because lend-lease stops does that mean every single American truck in Russia will stop functioning immediately? No, the effects of lend-lease will take time to influence the outcome, and yes, the longer it all goes on the Russians become more and more disadvantaged, i've already said this. The Russians already had the disadvantage of long supply lines over poor Russians roads, and although this caused some problems, they seemed to cope enough to reach Berlin, another few hundred km's on good roads would not stretch them to breaking point. I think they could live without their canned spam The lend-lease was effective for the Russians, but I think in 1945 they had quite enough for the short term. Maybe I should not have said advantage, maybe a parity then? Or cancel each other out? but I did say especially if they bugger off to bomb the oilfields, i'll hold to that Not if you are attacking where the defenders didnt have massed arty, but thats a moot point. The Russians had enough to cover a lot more areas than the W.A., I dont think the W.A. could. The reference to air superiority would mean we have to agree to disagree Oh you can hold your illusions, i'm quite ammendable to changing my views based on the whatevers presented. Umm, it _did_ work for the Germans in Western Europe, and c'mon now, you have to admit it was a close-run thing in 1941... It could work for the Russians as well because they are (arguably I guess) more experienced than the W.A., and could I be so bold as to believe the Russian ground forces were more developed than the Allies? (apart from the sheer numbers) IE, T34/JS2 etc

Just how was the Allied navy going to stop an attack over the Rhine? Or where ever in Europe apart from the coast. And dont you think the Russian Airforce would, to a lesser or greater extent, pretty much negate the Allied Airforce? Leaving the Russians with all their advantages and the the Allies none. Please, can we not argue why it didn't happen, that just takes all the fun out of hypothetical debates and 'what if's'! cheers

Well, we are all debating different points, lets see if we can pin-point it down a little bit. If war broke out between Russia and the W.A. in 45, I would imagine the Russian goal would be Western Europe, and the W.A. would be to stop this. I believe the Russians would accomplish their goal initially, but after 1946 who knows, we can only go on the relative strengths of 1945, and where things go after that is anybodies guess... I would think the W.A. economic strength would win out in the end, but it would take a very long time. For those who dont believe the Russians could have conquered W.E. in 1945, cite supply, airpower, mobility/radios, arty, and the naval strengths for the W.A.'s. IMO, supply was as much of a problem for the W.A. as it was for the Russians, so the same problems for the Russians also apply for the W.A. I would go so far as to say that the Russians did not have to first ship their oil to Europe, so even have an advantage. Naval power, only effective to about 20 klicks inland, so when that comes into effect it means the W.A. are doing another Dunkirk. Airpower. Bomb the hell out of Germany, see if the Russians care, after seeing the effects of strat bombing on German forces (and sometimes yes it was effective on static positions or when the Germans were in pockets), but now times the numbers of troops and tanks by a factor of say 10, have them swarming around here there and everywhere, and then think about how effective that bombing will be overall. Chuck in the worlds largest tactical airforce, which does not have to fly from England, and I would say that the Russians would have the advantage in the air. Especially if the W.A. bugger off to bomb the southern oil fields. The massed W.A. arty? Hmm, I guess the Russians didnt have any? As far as i'm concerned, the W.A. would have been swamped, and I have seen nothing here to make me re-think that. (remember, 1945-1946 though) cheers

The French divisions to which I referred were fully equiped with modern hardware(US), and for the most part fought very well in Western Europe. </font>

A couple of points here. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the balance of combat formations in Europe is not quite as bad as it seems in just counting divisions given the vast disparity in division size between Soviet and the Western Allies. Next, you are doing a bit of a disservice to the Italians (if you really want to get into it, we can talk about the reasons they performed poorly in some cases). For the last bit, by 1945, it wouldn't be very difficult to move anything to Europe from the US or South America. The Wolfpacks were gone, so their is no risk to transports. The tonnage of shipping available to the US in 1945 was staggering. In addition to the huge quanity of existing shipping (much of which could be moved from the Pacific), by late 44, US shipyards on the east coast were cranking out 1,000 liberty ships per year. That is three new cargo ships PER DAY. They wouldn't even need to form up in convoy, since the Soviets had nothing in the way of a naval threat. </font>

Probably they would have said "Nuts", and then Stalin might have kicked off a war, and we are back to debating what we are already debating

Ok, heres my 2 cents... Assuming a summer 1945 conflict escalating into war between Russia and the Allies. I'd put my money on Russia: Military: We've seen the figures of the 2 sides, even if they are slightly out, the Russians have a clear majority in all arms, tanks/arty/inf. Exhausted? sure, everyone was. Dont forget Italy and France & S.America etc etc, c'mon now, be a little realistic. Italy had shown her will to fight and I bet had no desire to tangle again with the Russians. France may have fought, but even if we said they mustered 15-20 divisions, its still a long way from tipping the balance in manpower. S.America would have taken 3 years to get anything over to Europe... Airpower - sure the Allies had the strategic power, long way to bomb Moscow from London however, and thats where they would be coming from. And to what end? the industry of Russia was further back than that, more widely dispirsed, and if Germany were anything to go by, it does not win the war by itself - not by a long shot. Supply. I hear the arguments about how far the Russian supply line was, the Allied one wasn't as long, if not longer? Lend-Lease. Sure that would have stopped, but would have had 2 effects: The Russians would have to take some of their economy from making tanks and switch to shoes/buckets/nails/cheesecakes etc, and secondly, they wouldn't be receiving any more transports for their infantry, which would have started to make an impact at some later point in the future, when attrition wore these down - but wouldnt have had an immediate threat. IMO, by the summer of '46 Russia would have taken the Low countries, France, the Balkans, maybe Italy, that might be a new campaign or more than likely Italy would change sides yet again to whomever was winning From there, who knows, would the Americans and British attempt another D-Day? Would the Russians attempt Sealion? Would the cold war start with the Russians controlling Europe and stand for 50 years?

Totally off topic, but just how does that baseball term work? I'm guessing you mean just over half, but what is the formula? Why don't they use 55.34% or whatever? cheers

Oh the Russians were well known for increasing enemy casualties and minimising their own

Wow, just read this entire thread in one go...only 90 minutes or so My answer for the original question, would stg44's have prolonged the war. Well, even if it was for 1 minute, then I guess the answer is yes To compare US marines with bolt action rifles aiming shots against a mob spraying ak47's is pointless, thats like comparing Schumacher in a Fiat Uno against a 10 year old kid in an F1 car. If you are going to compare AR v BA, keep the other variables as even as possible, and just because 'Hans' has an AR now, instead of a BA, does not automatically mean he will then not aim, because he can spray. I agree with the opinion it would not have enabled the Germans to extend the war, say 8 months or so, let alone win, because of all the other variables (Air power, economy etc ), however, I do believe Allied casualties would have been higher. (to put it bluntly, 10 men vs 10 men, all training and terrain etc being equal, and having one group comprised of BA vs the other AR, the range being the average for battle, IIRC; 1-200 metres? i'll take the side with AR any day thank you. I'd like to see anyone 'aiming' with a BA with 10 AR's firing at you, and then i'd like to see you try and flank the AR squad to get in close with grenades when the AR squad puts out a couple guys each side as well to suppress this flanking attempt.) To the point of Russians v USA/Britain/Canada etc etc, my money is on the Russians. No sea transport needed, out of range from long range bombers? (Moscow anyways ) More of everything in regards to Tanks/planes/infantry. More experienced, maybe not as well trained though. I guess if it did come to blows, whatever Germans were left over would join the Americans and Poms, so that would increase the odds (I guess then all Germans would be exempt from war crimes, cos they would then be 'goodies' ) Atomic bomb? America didnt have any others IIRC, and I can't see Russia just rolling over and surrendering after Japan, they would have duked it out til they were nuked out of existence. Anyways, my thoughts, I can in no way provide any reference to any of this ok? Well, I probably could, but i'm not about to shift my ass to please you unless you can provide good means for debate

Clear steppes and warm/hot IIRC edit - cool, just checked Its April 44, all Regular crews, hunt command, with armor arc straight in front. I believe the Russian tank was stationary, with much wider armor arc, covering whole front. Like I said, first shot kills, no rotation of my turret, I dont even see them! In others, if it goes past the first couple of shots, it can go either way, I wish I could post a 3 second movie clip [ April 04, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Tripps ]

Some have been scenarios with pre-selected forces (as was the first example) but I would say both. I've found the command delays for the Russians are in effect, in regards to following orders, so the Russian tank could be sitting there for a whole turn waiting to fulfil it's orders, but in the meantime, its no micky when it spots an enemy AFV!

This may seem a bit of a ramble, and your probably right, but I want some other input on this, because i'm going out of mind.... To put it simply, i've found German Optics at long range shocking, whereas Russian's seem to hit first shot at ranges greater than 1 k... I thought maybe i'm encountering some bad luck, but after talking to a few other PBEM opponants, they seem to have found the same thing, and wondered if this was a general concensus. Case in point for an example. Panther having a narrow field of view, about a 2 meter gap between some woods with LOS to some other woods about 1.5 k away. Infantry further up have LOS to suspected enemy held woods. Turns out there are Russians there, both infantry and a JS2. JS2 spots the Panther and shoots. Dead Panther. I dont even see the enemy units, a couple turns later I get the Tank? symbol. Great. Again and again, similar occurances, buttoned T34's in 41 with regular crew spotting within literally 1 second of my PIV coming into a hull down position 1 k away, and shooting, hitting first shot.... i'm becomming a little insane

I've just noticed that I downloaded the 1.02 patch when it came out, but the damn thing is still sitting on my desktop, IE, I havn't run it yet. :eek: Now, my curiousity is aroused because i'm in the middle of 6 PBEM games, and they are all running 1.02, whereas i'm running 1.01, this has been going on for about 2 weeks, with no problems... Still, I would have thought I wouldnt have been able to open their files, and vice-versa.... And i wonder how the calculations are worked out, wether it would be different for each version, eg, I may have been able to penetrate the T34 if the game turn calculation was worked out on my version, but not on my opponants... comments... Or should I just upgrade now and shut up J

Yeah thats what caught my eye as well, quoting from some old book dating back to 1980: " Major General Curtis LeMay, comander of the US B29 force in the Marianas during WWII, advised Washington that a forthcoming raid on Tokyo would be "an outstanding show". it was. A one-night firebomb attack in March 1945 leveled densely populated poor sections of the city, and - according to officials and students of the available records - killed (roasting many in their beds) more people than did the US atomic raid on Hiroshima five months later. The Hisroshima toll was about 80,000 people. The historian Lewis Mumford has estimated the Tokyo toll as being upward of 180 000." No emphasis added. FWIW cheers

lol

Good post Redwolf. I would go so far as to say that the main points of your post could be applied to any attacking scenario, but the advantages are more profound in bad weather where the defender has limited maneuverabilty to react, and visibilty to see where the main thrust is coming from. Shh, I actually use this method, but dont tell anybody BUT! what do do in the situation where, say you have the battlefield thus: ---------------MLR---------------- Flank A Middle B Flank C With flags randomly behind it. You recon the the middle 'B' with a strong force, as per your post, with your main thrust organised on flank A. And you encounter very strong defense from B, because the defender has refused flank A. I recently did this while defending, and its totally stumped the attacker, because he has had to totally recon that flank, to avoid being picked off from behind (he didnt do this properly, and my 75 howitzer is pinging away from behind now), and its taken a long time to reach the middle from that flank, where he meets strong resistance. (he also missed a platoon of men, which have come in behind and re-captured a flag ) Just interested how you would compensate for this tactic Cheers

Which reminds me, after reading about the German defense of Cholm in the winter of 41/42, there is a perfectly illistrated point where: (Sorry I cannot quote directly, can get the reference if ppl want) The Soviets would start the attack with the typical 'Uurah', and then shut up as they waded 200m through chest high snow. The Germans, knowing the Russians were getting totally stuffed, would just wait til they were halfway and then open up, and literally cut them down. The only times the Russians actually got into Cholm was when tanks and lots of suppressing fire was used. It goes on about the counter attacks to reach a hill that a link up force from the main German line could reach them for supply, and how it was simply impossible to move very fast at all, how they would be exhausted after meters of wading through snow, and how they could get picked off if there was no suppressive fire. FWIW

I've had success with Infantry against KV's, but alas, not when the Soviet had infantry supporting them.. Had a platoon headquarter unit disable one with a standard grenade too But, no tigers available, apart from 88's you just have to part them from their supporting Infantry and disable them with your Infantry. Aircraft are good, but I wouldnt be waiting for the KV's to run out of ammo, the loadout is considerable! cheers [ November 13, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Tripps ]

Would have won if DDay was a failure, the original post. Saying they 'did, so would have regardless' is pointless in a hypothectical disussion! The basis of which is that if DDay failed, the assertation is that Russia would have taken all of Europe. But then Lawyer comes along and puts it all down saying its all fantasy, guess what, we know that, and then continues with his 'simple facts' that USA bested the 'Nazis and Soviets', hey, guess what, we know that too, but didn't do it alone, which is what I feel he was implying. Interesting points. Further to that: Russia defeated Japan in that Manchurian? battle. There was a spy in Japan who reported to Stalin that Japan was not going to attack. USA was not at war at that point. And neither was Japan. Right around of the time of the blitzfreeze, Japan attacks USA. So, if Japan had attacked Russia instead? I think Stalin would not have had the Siberians, even though he may have considered falling back trading space for time there as well (and its a hellava long way from Japan to Moscow as opposed to from Warsaw to Moscow) Which would have meant not to serious a counter attack during the winter of 41/42, if there was a counter attack at all. Which would have left a few more experienced Germans soldiers around to carry on the next year. As a last point, after countless hours, and many a painstaking night, which leaves me in no doubt as to the valididty of any argument, making it beyond reproof, Japan has to attack Russia to win as the Axis in the boardgame 'axis & allies' ha, cheers

Well, that needs to be clarified then, I read defeat while trying best America from a WWII discussion as the USA besting those nations singlehandedly. Yes, they have outlasted, to further on that, when George Washington became President, in 1789, a King ruled France, a Holy Roman Emperor ruled much of Europe, a Czarina ruled Russia, a Shogun ruled Japan, and an Emporor ruled China, of these, only the office of President remains We have to decide on 'besting a nation during WWII singlehandedly' and 'out-lasting overall' is what was meant before we can follow this track I think. Yup, but keep in mind this is purely hypothetical of course. I would reason they couldnt because logistically it would have been a nightmare, take D-Day for example, and imagine the German resources at hand with no Oostfront... covered. Keeping in mind i'm coming from the viewpoint that I understood 'besting' a nation through combat, my references to track record stem from my, albiet, limited extensive knowledge of war, but since WWII, USA has been involved in wars in Korea, Vietnam the Gulf, and now Afganistan, without mentioning every single little skirmish in between. This is going to be difficult without writing skreeds and skreeds of pages, which would probably just make it nonsense But in a nutshell, 'bested' the Chinese in Korea, got 'bested' in Vietnam, I guess 'bested' Iraqi's in Kuwait, but there is still a fella over there for the last 10 years saying you aint done nothing , and finally Afganistan, which I believe the primary goal was to find one guy and his mates, secondary goal to put a more 'friendly' government in power. So on the fence as to who 'bested' who. So yeah, i'm not denying USA is a superpower in the total sense of the word, hell, everyone has there time in the limelight, and every great nation shall fall. You suspect right, dont see why this has any relevance, unless your assuming i'm some anti-USA guy, but I reckon there would be enough of those types of people in America itself, but i dont really consider myself part of any one country at all, sure, i'll cuss and scream with the rest of NZ when the All Blacks lose the rugby to the Aussies, but since I was born here, and my ancestry is all chop-suey with different cultures, I prefer the quote "Earth is but one country, and Mankind its citizens" cheers