blue division
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by blue division
-
-
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.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.
Which is what it did in France.
If you want to use a source, please understand it first. Otherwise there is no point.
-
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>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.
-
Ho ho ho.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.
-
WRONG.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.
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.
-
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.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]
Case closed.
Thanks for that.
-
Oh dear...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]
Can someone else talk to this man about the Allied interdiction effort and it's effect on the German Army in NWE?
-
So perhaps you can point me to the huge Soviet motor industry of the 1930's.Originally posted by flamingknives:The lack of Soviet-built trucks to provide transportation stems, AIUI, not from lack of ability but from lack of need. If the US hadn't supplied trucks, the Soviets would have built them.
-
Are we talking about summer 1944?Originally posted by flamingknives:Equally, trucks are constrained, especially on the Russian steppes, by the road system - travelling cross country is possible, but limits the number of trucks as the ground gets chewed up. [Edit: Stopping those damn terrorists]
If we are, then:
Nope. When the Russian attacked in Summer 1944, I bet the ground was baked solid. Even if it is wet, I bet they just chopped trees down and laid the logs down on the mud. If there is nothing to lay down, then they might be in trouble.
-
Never said they were the be-all and end-all of the Soviet triumph. My line of reasoning was that they ALLOWED the Soviets to conduct large scale deep offensive manoeuvres in 1944/5, and also to sustain such distances as were achieved in such a time as it took. Nothing more, nothing less.Originally posted by flamingknives:On one hand, they are utterly decisive and the Russians were unable to operate without them. Nor were they able to build them themselves.
On the other, they were a welcome addition and useful tool, but not the be all and end all of Soviet tactical and strategic maneuver.
Saying 'allowed' is not saying that they were the entire reason and method for the success.
After all, where would the US Army in Iraq be without motorized transport?
By the way, along the line of this discussion, someone suggested that you can use railways to do the same thing (as trucks). That is sustain an offensive across ground that has been won.
Does anyone here know how easy it is to interdict a railway system (using air power)? One line, fixed in place, lots of bridges, easily obervable from the air, with trains that give off clouds of smoke observable from the air for miles. At night, also observable for miles from the sparks. Please... This is the second world war we are talking about, not the First.
Trains were for the rear, not the front.
-
Who said I am whingeing?Originally posted by flamingknives:On a side note, whinging about how backwards the USSR was fails to account for the fact that they had relocated a vast proportion of their manufacturing base halfway across the largest country on Earth. A certain level of crudity is to be expected.
-
I notice that none of the 3 musketeers has come back with anything of substance to say about Khruschev being a political commissar.
I also note that he had rank of Lieutenant General. As well as being one of the 4 closest confidants of Stalin.
-
I think you need to tone down the rhetoric, please.Originally posted by Andreas:Well yes, but he has already 'proved' that (in the 'Lalaland, it's all in my head' sense of 'prove'), so now he has to move on to more exciting topics, such as Chruschtschow's wartime career, that historians everywhere got wrong so far.
rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rnt)
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants
v. intr.
To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.
-
I told you to put the cookery books away, Andreas. You are are getting confused now.Originally posted by Andreas:Next - how Chruschtschow's Space Lobster Force of Nazi Doom™ threatened Zhukov with a good kicking if he did not fail.
-
'When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. 'Originally posted by Andreas:Cabron is the other one that springs to mind. Maybe I better tell Seanachai.
Cicero.
-
From this State Department document :
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/frus58-60x1/12soviet6.html
'Mr. Khrushchev then, as I recall, recounted some incidents from the war in Russia. He said he was the "political commander" (in this capacity holding a position parallel to that of the military commander) of a field army on the southern front in the Kiev area. At one point in the German advance, in spite of great efforts the Russians had made to save this revered city, encirclement of their whole force had become imminent and he and his military commander has issued orders to withdraw. ...'
Looks like Khruschev was issuing orders to Soviet Army groups.
Please keep going. It's good to be cheered up on a Friday.
-
First:Originally posted by Bigduke6:Khruschev had several tailors throughout the war, each assigned on special detached duty from one of the Red Army fronts Khruschev was commanding.
If you want to know which tailor was working for Khruschev at a particular time, all you have to do is look up the number of the Red Army Front Khruschev was commanding.
Read a 10th grade book on the second world war.
Next:
Read a 10th grade book on the Soviet Union.
Suitably equipped, you should be able to read this. It is an academic document, so it may go over your head.
-
I demand a source for Khruschev's alleged size - preferably from his tailor or his wife.Originally posted by Bigduke6:BD,
Khruschev was a real short guy, perfect Red Army tanker material. And during the war years he was relatively skinny.
-
Oh dear, ad nauseum ....Originally posted by Bigduke6:BD,
Khruschev was a real short guy, perfect Red Army tanker material. And during the war years he was relatively skinny. So I am sure he could have fitted into the turret of a super-ueber PKWVI, although given his preference for garlic I am not sure I would want to have be in there with him. :eek:
But of course this is all theoretical, as we know Khruschev was in command of Red Army fronts during the war. (Although the numbers of those fronts appear to be secret.)
Flamingknives,
IMHO "ad absurdium" is pretty close, although frankly I think that insults absurd arguements a bit.
Do you know what political commisars did in the Red Army before 1943?
Where do we begin with you?
-
HEAT weapons tend to kill tanks by creating a critical amount of pressure within the tank when they penetrate. Very unpleasant for anyone inside.
They often leave very little damage to the tank itself - just a small hole in the armour.
-
I know the Germans always went for the turret with hand-held AT weapons. More chance of injuring the crew.Originally posted by roqf77:My source?
Cornelius ryans a bridge to far.
It doesnt state how it happenend whether or not the tiger brewed up simply it was abandoned.
But i have read a few accounts piats knocking out tigers including a few in the bocage.
It was not likely however a singular hit it was most likely tracked and then the gun was hit meaning the crew probably abandoned because there was not much reason to stay.
Not massivly familar with infantry anti tank tactics but i would assume that they would go for mobility kills then possibly to disable.
Im not sure about the piats ability to blow up tigers. i was simply stating the weapon at least convinced two crews enough to abandon there tanks.
-
I don't think political commissars were assigned to tank crews, Big Duke.Originally posted by Bigduke6:What I want to know is, was Nikita Khruschev in charge of the two Tiger tanks knocked out by PIATs at Arnehm? I think he was. Otherwise a great tank like a Tiger couldn't have been knocked out by PIATs.
Perhaps you have a reference or quotation that proves otherwise.
-
I don't think Khruschev could have fitted through the hatch of a tank.Originally posted by Bigduke6:What I want to know is, was Nikita Khruschev in charge of the two Tiger tanks knocked out by PIATs at Arnehm? I think he was. Otherwise a great tank like a Tiger couldn't have been knocked out by PIATs.
-
Yawn. (Stretch...)
-
German losses vs. West and East
in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk
Posted
Please read a Soviet history of the second world war.