John Kettler Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 This doc, "Fall of Berlin: Stopping the Nazi Heart," has lots of footage, most of which I'd not seen before. That footage includes the sequence of the amphibious jeeps crossing the Oder, bearing bazooka-carrying Russian infantry (had seen that one); a Russian squad, with lots of PFs, firing them one after another in street fighting; ZIS-3s firing from their gun pits and one being trundled through the streets by hand. Bigger stuff in Direct Fire. Katyushas. Su-76M. IS-2. ISU-152. 88. 85. Panthe. StuG III with full skirts and roof MG occupied and firing. Scads of T-34/85s. I don't want to spoil it, but will simply say the interviews are not merely great, but they feature many pivotal people you'd be amazed are still around to tell their tales. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 RT is NOT an acronym for Real Time. It's the TV network. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 BTW, the use of BoB to stand for Battle of Berlin is clear enough in the present context, it could cause misunderstanding and confusion with Battle of Britain somewhere down the road. Might consider altering it henceforth to something like BoBe or even BoBer? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Michael Emrys, I'm quite surprised that not only has there been no response outside of yours, but no one seems to have noticed "UNTHINKABLE" and the rich possibilities for "What if" gaming. Until I saw that bit, all I'd ever read about was Patton's desire to keep pushing and wipe out the Russians, whom he knew would become our outright enemies. Churchill's plan, though, caused me to gasp. 47 Allied Divisions and 12 German. Certainly lots of Russian divisions, but what I've read indicates they were pretty much spent, very much in need of rest and resupply, particularly ammo. I believe airpower would've been devastating. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Not to Mention Band of Brothers, the club as well as the series. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Go ahead. Keep egging me on! How are you going to feel when you're stuck with BBer?! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmox Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 BBer is the abreviation for us blood bowl players sorry,try again:) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niall78 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Michael Emrys, I'm quite surprised that not only has there been no response outside of yours, but no one seems to have noticed "UNTHINKABLE" and the rich possibilities for "What if" gaming. Until I saw that bit, all I'd ever read about was Patton's desire to keep pushing and wipe out the Russians, whom he knew would become our outright enemies. Churchill's plan, though, caused me to gasp. 47 Allied Divisions and 12 German. Certainly lots of Russian divisions, but what I've read indicates they were pretty much spent, very much in need of rest and resupply, particularly ammo. I believe airpower would've been devastating. Regards, John Kettler The British and Canadian forces were also spent - they been cannibalising units since the middle of Normandy to make units with at least a semblance of their supposed ToE. The major problem would have been casualties - something the democratic countries feared greatly due to public opinion and something that really didn't concern the Russians. Every consideration on the Western side was predicated on lowest possible casualties - this wasn't them being nice to their soldiers - it was political expediency. What would be the expected Western death count of a Russian attack into Eastern Germany with their Shock Armies? It would make the Bulge look like a picnic in the woods. How would Western opinion have stood one million or so dead facing their highly experienced allies while standing shoulder to shoulder with their axis enemies who'd just been exposed as civilian mass murders? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 The major problem would have been casualties - something the democratic countries feared greatly due to public opinion and something that really didn't concern the Russians. I'm not sure that is entirely true. Granted that casualty count was not such an immediate concern among the USSR leadership, they were not unaware that at some point they were likely to start running very low indeed in draftable men. And running out of soldiers would bring everything to a halt. Every consideration on the Western side was predicated on lowest possible casualties... I'd call that an exaggeration too, although closer to the truth generally. There were numerous occasions when Allied generals were willing to expend their soldiers' lives if they thought that would achieve the objective. Indeed, it is just about impossible to wage a war without doing so. How would Western opinion have stood one million or so dead facing their highly experienced allies while standing shoulder to shoulder with their axis enemies who'd just been exposed as civilian mass murders? Good point. At the cessation of hostilities just about everybody was beyond war weary and wanted no more fighting for a good, long time. Europe was largely devastated and prostrate both from the death count and having industries and infrastructure destroyed or displaced. There were literally millions of homeless and displaced persons who needed to be fed, clothed, and resettled. Patton was trying to swim against the tide. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niall78 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Definitely Patton was trying to swim against the tide. It's hard to actually contemplate what he was suggesting. In essence he wanted to drag the war in Europe on for many more years. How was the USSR to be knocked out of this war? Another march on Moscow? Hope the tiny amount of A-Bombs produced could tilt the balance? Europe was close to famine, its cities wrecked, its farms untended, its factories destroyed or worn out. America itself was glad the end had arrived in Europe - its soldiers happy to have survived. Yet here was Patton contemplating throwing them all into another huge conflagration with no real clear-cut outcome or endgame. I've always had doubts about Patton as a force commander. At a strategic and political level he was a non-entity - an embarrassment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Good video. Never ceases to amaze me how easily 'leaders' are able to trade lives for positional gain. The West would have never succeeded with that plan imo. We don't have the stomach for it although I like to think with our back against the wall we could as the Russians did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.