blue division

Quote: 'Not the presence of trucks or cans of spam. ' Please be polite on this forum. By denigrating me you are losing your credibilty.

Quote: 'Khruschev after all was a politician and not a professional soldier. (Although being the Stalingrad commissar helps.)' Well, if you want to contradict yourself in the same sentence, how can I take you seriously. Of course, you can make the point that Stalin et al were not professionals as they weren't paid much. They did have all the perks of the job. As for your statement: Wrong again. Khruschev took charge of fronts on several occasions in the initial desperate stages of the war. He was basically glory hunting. One of the fronts I think was the offensive in spring 1942 near Kharkov - off the top of my head. Will you please get your facts straight before posting to this forum. Quote : 'I have read both memoirs. Have you?' Bully for you. So you can read? That is 5th grade stuff. Please raise your game. Quote: 'Supply is important, but it does not in and of itself win battles. ' I did not say that - please do not misquote me or take me out of context. Any fool knows battles are won by fighting. Quote: 'The decisive, I repeat decisive, shift was newfound tactical ...' Oh so now you are changing the terms of your argument by adding the caveat 'decisive' to your argument that trucks weren't important. Quote: 'Supply is important, but it does not in and of itself win battles.' Good. It takes a while to get through sometimes, but at last the point has been taken. And by the way, I never said that infantry, tanks, tactics , strategy et al. aren't important. You have to realise that in modern warfare, none of these things matter if you cannot keep them supplied. That is my point.

Quote: ' In answer to your question "How do you get those sleepers and rails forward?" I answer: on the functioning portion of the railroad. Just drive the train to the end of the line and unload it.' What drivel - if they only laid one track, how could they both lay the track and use it for the purpose it was built for - getting troops and supplies forward. Or maybe now you will tell me that they laid a dual track, high speed TGV train with club carriages? If you are going to speculate, at least think through what you are saying...

Quote : ' Blue Division is just trying to troll' Please do not attack my integrity. The fact that you are questioning my integrity indicates that YOU are the one losing the argument.

Nikita Krushchev (in his memoirs): "How could we have advanced from Stalingrad and Kursk on to Berlin without American aid and foodstuffs? We had lost our grain-producing areas". Case closed, gentlemen. ======================= ======================= It should be noted that the US fed Russia during the war, as well as providing it with the transport to move the food around.

Quote : 'And like I said, a RAIL bridge was functioning across that water obstacle in a little less than two weeks.' Try thinking back a few hours - to get from a rail head to the front requires TRUCKS. To bring the bridging equipment up requires - TRUCKS. Quote : 'when the Soviet army according to its own accounts returned to regions populated enough to draw supply and personnal from.' oh dear - this area had been deliberately starved by the Germans over the past 3 years. Large portions of the adult population were transferred by Germany to work in the Reich. Any recruits the Red Army got would have been partisans pressed into uniform. Do you know any of the history on the Eastern Front, rather than reading comical accounts from the Soviet Archive, which are full of holes where any possible criticism has been cut out? Yuo really need to start using different materials. I can't stress this highly enough.

Quote : I think the truth you are missing is ... it is an error to underestimate the Russian ability to conduct war I think your whole line of reasoning is flawed. You have a hypothesis (the Russians could have won the war as they did without any help), and are looking for any evidence that proves it, while discounting any evidence that works against it. This is a fundamental flaw in any line of reasoning. For example, you have entirely ignored the fact that while the Russians were fighting on only one front, the Germans were fighting on four in 1944 (East, West, Italy and the air war over Germany - you could even include the U-Boat war, but I will discount this as this was sinding down in 1944). Not to mention 250,000 German personnel in Norway, 250,000 in the Balkans. But I suppose you will ignore this reality and go on about the accounts of some academic study of the Red Armys performance in 1944/5. You are making the same mistake as Hitler by placing too much emphasis on small unit tactics and equipment. Try being like Stalin, and looking at the bigger picture of the war, that is logistics and general strategy. By concentrating too much on the detail, you lose sight of the whole.

Quote : 'From what source did you derive the 'quote' attributed Goebbels' Oh yes, that would be such and such a book chapter 13 page 451 paragraph 2. There, no I have given you a source it must be true right? Well no, because sources can easily be made up. A broad and in depth knowledge of the history of the period will serve you much better in these discussions, rather than trawlign through books for quotes.

Quote : ''Deeply concerned' and 'cared' are really very similar. Granted, there are minor semantic difference, but you are aware that English is Andreas' second language?' Back to school we go.... Defintiions of : Concern n 1: something that interests you because it is important or affects you; "the safety of the ship is the captain's concern" A matter that relates to or affects one. To engage the attention of; involve: We concerned ourselves with accomplishing the task at hand. Care 1 : watchful or protective attention, caution, concern, prudence, or regard usually towards an action or situation; 2 a : personal supervision or responsibility : CHARGE b : MAINTENANCE Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have with the use of the English language. Please next time at least consult a dictionary before posting a statement such as this on this forum.

Quote: 'In particular the part about Goebbels caring about what happened to people in Hamburg.' You like references a lot - but yet you can't even get mine right. here it is below - please quote me correctly me next time: 'he obviously was deeply concerned' (about the destruction of hamburg). This doesn't mean that he 'cared' - that is putting words in my mouth. I am deeply concerned about your use of references - you can't even get mine right when it is right in front of you. If you are going to quote me, please do so in the original context. Basic writing and journalism skills - anything else is being a hack. I am starting to question your liberal use of references - are they all in the right context?

'Who is more skilled at warfighting?' The Germans. Don't you know any history?

Quote : 'Irrelevant. The Germans managed to have hundreds of thousands die from aerial bombing while rampaging around Russia,' Well, perhaps I would quote to you a private comment made by Goebbels (chief of the home front). He called the bombing of Hamburg a 'catastrophe'. And that comes from the mouth of the biggest spin-doctor in history. So for someone like him to admit a catastrophe, he obviously was deeply concerned. The Germans tried vainly to stop the Allied bomber offensive, diverting massive resources to aerial defences, AA guns etc. The Soviets, on the other hand, did nothing about there starving citizens. Irrelevant? Looks like the only thing that is irrelevant is --> comparing German and Soviet attitudes to the suffering of their own citizens. (a) The Nazis were acutely aware of it (apart from 1945 when they didn't care any more). ( The Soviets (i.e. Stalin, Kruschev, Beria et al) couldn't give a fig. In fact they would look at you if you were starving as an obstacle to winning the war.

Quote : 'And before you come back with more tripe, ' Well if you want to sink to mud slinging, fine. Looks like you are the one running out of ammo - check your supply train - perhaps you didn't take into account the transport you would need?

Quote : 'They were beaten fair and square at Yelnia a long time before autumn, during the height of summer.' The Germans suffered several reverses before the mud settled in. But they could always out manouever the Russians at that point of the war. You are saying that they were bogged down then? That they were beaten 'fair and square' in the autumn? What was 'Operation Typhoon', the winter assault on Moscow? Maybe you haven't heard of that? Or would you like to discount this major battle for the purpose of your little discourse? Try looking at the facts, which were: (a) The Germans used their last reserves in Operation Typhoon. ( The Russians had one more set of reserves that they hadn't used (the Siberian troops). It was pure attrition at that point of the whole operation. The Russians had more reserves than the Germans. © The panzer divisions were immobilized by the cold and/or were in dire need of refit - they only had a few serviceable tanks left per unit at that point. It ended up being a largely infantry led assault, and therefor the Germans gave up a large point of the advantage they had held in the summer months. *** This brings me back to my earlier point about the need for the panzer division workshops to keep up with the troops. The trucks used by the logistics corps of the Wehrmacht were unsuitable for off road conditions and were nearly useless in the snow and mud. Orders were placed with Mercedes Benz for 4-wheel drive trucks, but these would take years to be delivered. The war was over by the time they would arrive. This brings me back to my point about Germany - it had no real idea about the Soviet Union, or what is was undertaking by invading it. A bit like Napoleon, and a monumental folly. Quote: 'The allies did beat the Germans in Normandy,...' - actually I said France. Normandy is a province of France, in the north west coast of the country. France is composed of many different provinces. France is much bigger than Normandy. To conquer Normandy in two months could be done by an un-mechanized army, yes its possible, I grant you that. But to advance as quickly as the Allies did to the German frontier required - (wait for it) - TRUCKS! I should also point out to you that none of the Channel ports fell *intact* to the Allies. The supplies had to be moved by (wait for it) - TRUCKS - to the troops in eastern France all the way from the Normandy beachhead for a long time. Or maybe you can suggest another way of supplying an army then - perhaps magic carpet? This lag in driving the supplies from Normandy to the front meant that the Allied advance slowed down. Or maybe you have other ideas on supply for Allies in France? Perhaps they could buy petrol on the way at motorway service stations for their tanks. Perhaps pick up a few snacks as well in the shop too. You say: 'they would probably have been in Belgium and Lorraine at pretty much the same time anyway.' Are you suggesting the Allies hitchhiked and stopped at Youth Hostels on the way?

Quote : 'If there is one thing communism is good for, it is organising big projects, and running a war properly.' Again, you need to pick up an objective history of the Great Patriotic War. I would suggest one that has been written since the fall of communism, and with the up to date facts from the newly opened archives, without the Communist whitewashing of uncomfortable facts. My point : parts of the Soviet Union were suffering famine throughout the war. This is because there were too few men working the fields as well as a lack of transport to move food around the Soviet Union. When hundreds of thousands of your own citizens are starving to death, that is sheer incompetence. I don't see any talen for war in having people starving to death in your own country because you can't feed them.

Quote : 'Whether they needed heaps of materiel to do it is irrelevant.' Personally, I always look at the actuality, rather than trying to fit the facts around my opinions.

Quote : ' The overall success of the offensive is however not just the depth, but also the destruction of enemy formations. This is an aspect where trucks helped, but by themselves would not have changed much. ' The Red Army used artillery extensively during the 1944/5 push. How do you think they moved the pieces, and the ammunition? In your view, the Red Army could have left their artillery at home. I suppose when Stalin said "Artillery is the god of war" he was cracking a joke with you.

'The Germans did not manage to destroy everything. They managed some destruction close to the front where they started the retreat, but the further they got, the less they managed.' Oh dear. Do you know anything about the Great Patriotic War fom Soviet histories?

Quote: 'Also special rail road flat bed trucks that had a claw that stuck into the wooden sleepers of the track'...' do a silly and pretty pointless job.' It was the crudest machine you can imagine. About as sophisticated as a wrecking ball used for demolition. A flat bed railway carriage with a claw hanging off the back angled into the ground. Quote : 'mines ... it was no big deal for the Soviets to drive along side the road' That's right. But if you know what you are doing, you mine the road where there is no easy way around or where people are least expecting or are likely to pass. And when you do go off road, you do it with your 6x6 GMC truck from Detroit. Quote : 'If there's one thing the Russians had an endless supply of, it's more wood for railroad sleepers and laborers to cut it and then lay the rails' You miss the point - how do you get that quantity of material forward? It takes time. And by that time the Germans will have prepared there next position. Quote : 'In Katukov's memoirs about 1st Guard Tank Army's assault crossing of the Wisla, it took about about 48 hours.' Exactly! And that's with your bridging equipment (made in the US) brought forward on US made trucks. And still 48 hours with the full exertions of your army. The Soviet Army had the largest bridge-laying capability in the world - right up into NATO vs. Warsaw Pact times. Massive importance was given to this by the commanders. It is difficult to see how they could have done this without Lend Lease help. Of course, they could try and build it from scratch, but this would take time. Again, Lend Lease aided the speed of the Russian advance. Quote : 'I always thought deep spaces, long retreats, the other guy's lengthening supply line, and General Winter fought on the Russian side, ' Well you have just said it - my point that is. The same should work equally in favour for the Germans for the long retreat. But when you have an enemy that can attack faster than you can fall back, then you get surrounded. As should be obvious. Quote : 'Large-scale military land movement in general, and in Russia especially, depends on the railroad. And the Russians did pretty well at not getting ahead of their railheads, ' Western Russia and ByeloRussia were in ruins after the war. The population were living in holes in the ground. The Germans had totally demolished all of the railway stations and signalling equipment. I don't know where you get your ideas from.

Quote : 'If the germans managed it in 41 without a hell load of trucks, isnt it then possible to say the russian advance in 44 wasnt entirly down to trucks. ' There is a big difference between 1941 and 1944. In 1941, the Red Army was given one set of orders that were to be opened if (and only if) hostilities broke out. That was to advance. Whole units were encircled immediately, and the Germans were able to advance very quickly. The Russians were not instructed to destroy bridges, railroads etc. as they had not been instructed to do so by Stalin. It was only until autumn, after the Germans had advanced far into the interior, that Stalin ordered 'scorched earth'. You can see that unsurprisingly, this is when the German advance became a lot more difficult. The mud made advance impossible after this. Contrast this with 1944. The Germans are EXPERTS at the tactical withdrawal. They had all the orders and means to destroy the infrastructure of the terrain they were giving up at hand. That is, demolition charges on bridges, mined roads. Also special rail road flat bed trucks that had a claw that stuck into the wooden sleepers of the track and tore them up and snapped them in two as the car passed over them. In this way they destroyed the railroad of western Russia instantly. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of new railroad sleepers would have to be brought forward and laid down by workers before these railroads could be used again. Also, thousands of tons of bridging equipment would have to be brought forward and laid down, again by thousands of engineers. Many hundreds of miles of roads and tracks would be unsafe to travel on due to mines being laid. As I have said before, every house has also been demolished and there is nothing to eat either. Contrast this with 1941, where the Germans in the summer drove for hundreds of miles without meeting serious resistance, with all the bridges and roads open. And the case of the Ukraine and the Baltic states, large portions of the population welcoming you and actively encouraging your advance eastwards against the Soviets. What could be more different?

Quote : 'Objectivity is about looking at what both sides say. ' You have got to take war time accounts with a BIG pinch of salt. You have got to remember - German Army officers were subject to the de-nazification process in Germany after the war. This applies even more to the senior staff officers who were closely involved in the running of the war. They were all subject to investigation by the post-war German authorities, and could wind up serving a long prison sentence or being removed from holding any public office. Therefore - they had to be very careful about what they put into print. It is well known that the captives in this situation were only to glad to say what their captors wanted to hear them say. Hence the German staff officers who had been captured by the Allies were only too glad to rubbish the Russian enemy as being 'savage' or 'asiatic'. Remember, the Iron Curtain had come down and the Allies were starting to become very paranoid and afraid of the 'Red Menace'. Another point is these captured Germans were more than willing to put on the uniform of any new German Army that was to be formed in the post-war period. A lot of them were career soldiers after all. So a healthy dose of anti-communism would help you get back your previous post, as this would be music to British and American ears.

Also, apparently the Germans had no idea on what conditions were really like in the Soviet Union. That is probably the most incredible aspect of the entire invasion. The German high command had no accurate intelligence on what the Soviet Union was really like. They had maps that were years out of date. No accurate idea of the composition of the Red Army and it's equipment. They tended to go on their prejudices on the inferiority of the Russians, particularly after the Russo-Finish war of 1940. And that's why the Germans kept on thinking with one last push the Russians would collapse. They had *no* clear idea of the resources of the Soviet Union. How stupid is that? So the moral of the story is - if you decide to invade a country, try and spend at least some time getting an accurate picture of conditions inside the country. That was you won't have any nasty surprises later on. You could equally apply this principle to the current invasion of Iraq.

Quote : 'the Wehrmacht lost its 1941 campaign in the end - one of the reasons for this was a total ignorance of the logistical requirements for conquering the Soviet Union.' Good point. Why did they bog down? Because the dirt roads in Russia turned to mud. And when they turned to mud, the German supply columns ground to a halt. The German Army then had to dig in and wait for the ground to harden.

Quote : 'That is the same as arguing that only air superiority was the reason why the Allies won in France' What?? Whby is it the same? I didn't say that. What has airpower got to do with it? You have just re-confirmed my point - the bulk of the Allied fighting force was moved to the front by trucks and supplied by trucks. There was not railroad in France - it had been obliterated by airstrikes and sabotage. THE ALLIES USED TRUCKS !!! THEY WERE SUPPLIED BY TRUCKS !!!!

Quote Again: 'Rubbish - the railroads were rebuilt at a rate of 0-30km per track a day during advances.' And what happens when you disembark from the train? you still have to move from there to the front with all of your equipment. And stay supplied. Same as real life - trains don't go everywhere. Just admit it - It was trucks that helped the Russians advance as they did in 1944/5. They suddenly didn't become a world beating force mid-war. They just got better leadership at the high command level, better equipment and lots more of it than the Germans.