[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Leopard2,

I ain't saying that the supply definately got better. Only maybe - it's a question of whether the improved roads compensate for the distance from yer railheads. Just some food for thought.

I am going to start keeping a list of these, BigDuke.

These are priceless - you should start writing your own books, I think.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Leopard2,

I ain't saying that the supply definately got better. Only maybe - it's a question of whether the improved roads compensate for the distance from yer railheads. Just some food for thought.

And I personally am enjoying this thread immensely. BD is priceless, he really is.

And BD, yes I have read a history book or two in my time. For instance Glantz. Which brings me right back to the old listeroo, and yes folks it keeps right on growing. At this rate we're going to displace the Space Lobsters thread!

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?

Yawn...

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Leopard_2:

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

Can you tell us all how moving away from your supply sources improves your supply situation, please?

The distance between factory and frontline gets longer. True.

The road situation between supply depot and front units improves. Also true.

Is this the fruit of your carefully considered 'research'?

This could have been an interesting thread if it hadn't become personal... </font>

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

On Bagratian, Lvov-Sandomirz, Vistula-Oder, and Berlin, it occurs to me that as the Red Army moved west paradoxically its supply situation improved to some extent, as the roads got better.

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'?

[German losses vs. West and East]

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:

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The basic 'trucks played a role' was never in dispute. The current smokescreen put up by our friend who presumably just graduated from Midvale Debating School for the Gifted is of course that it was. And that Chruschtschow murdered Operation Mars, of course. That one still has me giggling.

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

We are talking about WWII remember? Or perhaps you have digressed again.

Please stay on subject, don't talk about horsefeathers.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Finally, no post of mine on this topic would be complete without an update of "questions Blue Division refuses to answer". As I predicted, it got longer. Talk about yer foot sandwiches.

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?

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

You appear to have gone from "US trucks were key to Russian deep operations" and "USSR didn't make many trucks" to quoting sources that state that the US contributions were in fact in the minority of trucks used by the Soviet Union. While I would refrain from making conclusions as to the state of the debate, you do see how this sort of thing could hurt your argument?

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

BD old buddy,

Yep, you got that right, that was a response. One of my better, I thought. However, I will be delighted to raise my game, as you so charmingly put it, if you tell me:

1. Which fronts it was Khruschev commanded.

2. The difference between a Soviet front and a Soviet field army.

3. Why it is the Soviet tool industry was incapable of manufacturing a truck.

4. If that was the case, who was it that made the Zil, KraZ, URAL, and MaZ series of wheeled cargo vehicles.

5. Whether you read "Das Reich" by Max Hastings.

6. Whether you read ANY book by David Glantz.

7. Why Soviet cavalry pants have floppy thighs.

These are pretty simple questions. Well, all but the last one. My advice, answer as quick as you can. If you don't, the list is only going to get longer.

Is this a response?

Please raise your game. [/QB]

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Please, more Khruschev stuff.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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

[German losses vs. West and East]

'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...

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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?

[German losses vs. West and East]

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

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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:

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.

[German losses vs. West and East]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

How much harder is it to adapt machine tools to build trucks rather than tanks?

You basically throw the tools away and start again.

[German losses vs. West and East]

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.