blue division

I am going to start keeping a list of these, BigDuke. These are priceless - you should start writing your own books, I think.

Yawn...

The distance between factory and frontline gets longer. True. The road situation between supply depot and front units improves. Also true. This could have been an interesting thread if it hadn't become personal... </font>

Can you tell us all how moving away from your supply sources improves your supply situation, please? Is this the fruit of your carefully considered 'research'?

So you have read this book, written by a journalist as a hobby. I wouldn't brag about this one too much BigD. It ain't winning you much confidence over here. Please read a book written by a historian, rather than a political journalist.

It's time to move on Andreas. Perhaps you should look at my quote from Cicero, about when you don't have an argument resort to personal abuse. I suggest you absorb it.

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. We are talking about WWII remember? Or perhaps you have digressed again. Please stay on subject, don't talk about horsefeathers.

Please read all of this stuff yourself. This is a discussion forum, not a tuition one. There are plenty of very good books now aviable that have been written since the archives have been opened. Yuo should read some.

We are talking about the Russian Front and the advance in 1944. Everything you have written above here is irrelevant, as I have just pointed out that the trucks were largely American. Please read the sources given and come back later.

Is this a response? Please raise your game. [/QB]

I notice that you haven't read the last paper I sent you. It is one thing to give lots of sources, another to read them. Please go away and read the bit that said US trucks were used at the front, USSR ones in the rear. NB. The USSR plant was stuff shipped from the US. Almost certainly old plant, from the twenties, and therefore very unreliable compared to what was coming off the lines in Detroit in the 1940's. Therefore the more reliable trucks were used at the front. If you look at photos of ZIL's you will see what I mean about them being 'last years model'. Look at a GMC 6x6, and it is modern. If I trying to teach you something, please at least read what I have provided you and digest it. My statement about the USSR not having any trucks is therefore correct, as I was talking about in the context of the front. Of course the Soviet Union had trucks, but it is noticeable that it did not have nearly enough to win the war in the manner it did in 1944. That is why they were at the top of Stalin's shopping list, with tanks and aircraft and food. I have brought you to acknowledge that trucks were used at the front to move troops about. That in itself is a success. Perhaps now we can move forward into having a sensible debate about the USSR and its conduct of the war. No more miraculous conversions of the Red Army from 1942 to a world-beating force in 1944. Yes, they did improve. But there are a lot more factors involved than just this. Its been a long road, but we are getting there.

Please, more Khruschev stuff.

If you keep arguing FlamingKnives, I can turn you around and have you pointing the other way, without you even knowing it.

'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...

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.

Do you whittle, FlamingKnives? Do you hum 'whittle away' whilst doing this?

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

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.

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.

Quote of the day: Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. Leonardo da Vinci

Is this a response? Please raise your game.

Oh my god.... :confused:

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.

You basically throw the tools away and start again.

He was a political commissar, and as such wore a pretty plain and dour uniform. Please read a history of the Soviet Union.