German losses vs. West and East

[blue division]

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.

Oh dear, ad nauseum ....

Do you know what political commisars did in the Red Army before 1943?

Where do we begin with you?

[blue division]

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.

I demand a source for Khruschev's alleged size - preferably from his tailor or his wife.

[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.

[blue division]

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.

First:

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.

http://www.sovietarmy.com/documents/zampolit.html

[blue division]

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.

[Bigduke6]

BD,

Your U.S. government source unfortunately says nothing about whether Khruschev would fit in a tiger tank, or if he wore those great Soviet cavalry general pants with the floppy thighs and double-red stripe down the side.

You might want to do a little research on the difference between a Soviet field army and a Soviet front. It's a pretty big difference, like, 30 divisions or so. That's maybe 300,000 soldiers, which means you may well have just set a new personal record for historical accuracy, or lack thereof.

Maybe while you're reading you can look up the the number at least one of the many Red Army fronts you said Khruschev commanded. Any one at all.

Enjoy yer weekend.

[Andreas]

Mr. Tittles.

[Andreas]

It's the googling up of irrelevant, or plain wrong, pseudo-sources that gives him away.

Great thread by the way - now we have 'Political commanders'. A previously unknown rank in the Red Army. History is being discovered as we type.

Next - how Chruschtschow's Space Lobster Force of Nazi Doom™ threatened Zhukov with a good kicking if he did not fail.

[flamingknives]

I did think of Tittles, but he was usually better at swamping you with his google-tastic research skills.

I do like his conviction though. When you're not paying much attention, he gets a bit closer to getting away with it. I almost didn't notice that he contradicted himself with his own source on the dictionary bit.

On top of that - there's some serious mission-creep going on in this thread. I thought it was all about how trucks were the only reason for the improvement in the Soviet Army.

[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.

[Andreas]

Cabron is the other one that springs to mind. Maybe I better tell Seanachai.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by roqf77:

true but all im saying is the second rate troops werent all they had faced. in the end they were battered for a reason.

You do make some good points though i understand and to a point i agree.

If you dont mind answering what do you think would of happenend if monty was given the go ahead for operation comet when he first asked for it.

Dont mean to argue bitterly with you so much but my grandad was in the duke of cornwalls light infantry.

They faced mostly second rate troops. Plus a few good ones. The good ones were not enough to stop them - but they had their share, too. Guess we found an agreement here.

I have no problem in a nice debate. I felt no bitterness and hope I didn't cause any.

On Comet: I agree with Sosabowski - it would have failed.

Gruß

Joachim

[blue division]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Cabron is the other one that springs to mind. Maybe I better tell Seanachai.

'When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. '

Cicero.

[blue division]

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.

I told you to put the cookery books away, Andreas. You are are getting confused now.

[blue division]

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.

I think you need to tone down the rhetoric, please.

rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rnt)

v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants

v. intr.

To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.

[flamingknives]

How many 'are's in that?

Going back to the start, as we seem to have gotten lost somewhere, it seems that the point of contention is the level of importance of US trucks.

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.

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.

[blue division]

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.

[blue division]

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.

Who said I am whingeing?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Joachim:

But the German infantry didn't have to "stop" the 1st A/B. It had the role of containing the bulk of the Div while crushing Frost at the bridge. Which it did with the help of armour, and armoured vehicles, after several days of bitter fighting. The units attempting to reinforce the bridge just didn't have the weight of support to create a proper link-up and were stopped short.

[flamingknives]

While we're at the Dictionary:

rhetoric n. 1 art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. 2Language designed to persuade or impress (esp. seen as overblown or meaningless)

Using definition 1, all debate consists of rhetoric, so asking to tone it down in a debate is not entirely logical. Unless you are not referring to the rhetorical content.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by blue division:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Who said I am whingeing? </font>

[blue division]

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.

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.

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.

[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. Railways don't have this problem, and can also carry heavier loads. As for intediction, Allied air superiority in NWE was total and men and materiel was still moved by train. From late '42 (to pick a date out of the air - feel free to correct) control of the air was contested

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.

Still, I (and others, it seems) would contend that ALLOWED is too strong a term regarding the status of US trucks. Aided would be more accurate.

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]

[blue division]

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]

Are we talking about summer 1944?

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.

[blue division]

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.

So perhaps you can point me to the huge Soviet motor industry of the 1930's.