Economics in SC--Exactly right!

[husky65]

Originally posted by Norse:

Here are some figures for the lend lease.

---------------

Lend Lease Aid; major recipients 41-45

Commonwealth : 14.296.120.000$

Think about the figures for awhile.

Whilst the figure for the C'wealth is probably accurate (I haven't checked it), as an Australian I'd just like to point out that Australia was 'lend lease neutral' - we sold the same value of goods to the US as we bought back.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Norse:

Compare this.

When the Germans attacked the Caucasus mountainrange in the summer 1942, unarmed Sovjet factory workers, volentarily strapped mines on their backs, and jumped in front of the German tanks as they approached their homes.

An interesting definition of 'unarmed' that you use (unarmed but for a pack of HE?), and you also ignore the sheer stupidity of the tactic (assuming it actually happened - I would like to see a cite), if you are close enough to blow up a tank with HE on your back, you are close enough to throw the HE at or on the tank and possibly survive.

The Brits achieved a similar thing with the 'sticky' grenade (Gammon IIRC), the Germans went with Magnetic mines - all without a need for suicide tactics - risky, yes, but not suicidal.

How the hell can you compare that to anything?

Pretty easily, one HE clad idiot who commits suicide may take one tank.

One lightly trained individual with the backing of an industrial society, has a cheap sheet metal rocket launcher (Bazooka) and several rockets (each with a much smaller explosive component than a sack full of HE) - he is more able to destroy one tank and live again to destroy another.

Suicide is not noble, nor is it efficient AT tactics.

Please read the story of Leningrad. There you see that the entire civilian population, was vital to the defence of the city. My grandfather showed me pictures of grandmothers wearing AK-47's, of children throwing molotov cocktails, and little girls digging trenches.

I am now determined to read the story of Leningrad, it must be a ripping read - could you scan and post me a picture of these AK-47 wielding grandmothers in 41/42?

The axis juggernaught were blown up by some untrained, unarmed factory workers. Civilians who resisted. How much "production power" did you need to get thoose guys to actually stop the German tanks, and blow up the German crew? How can you claim that "nah they didn't produce X number of planes, so that doesn't matter...."

Ah, the innocent nobility of suicide - the workers unarmed but for a sack of HE go in to the attack.

Could you provide a reference for this actually happening?

But how much more efficient it would have been if they had either laid the AT mines as per the design spec or had access to a Typhoon fighter bomber, Bazooka or sticky mine.

Industry means you can use weapons rather than men to do the killing.

Nobody has said that the USSR didn't matter, but the simple fact is that without the west the USSR would have lost.

Without the USSR the west would have won anyway, remember in 1945 the west was still going to be swinging FDRs big stick.

[ October 16, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

[Melchett]

Bazookas? Mines? Bah! Anyone who's ever read "Sgt. Rock" comics knows how to knock out a Tiger tank. You stand proud and upright with cigar-butt clenched in your teeth, glaring steely-eyed at the monster as it thunders towards you. When it is 50 feet away, you raise your pistol, shout "this one's for Freddy and Charley and Lil' Angelo!", and fire a single shot directly into the driver's periscope. The shot miraculously ricochets into the ammo rack and the Tiger goes up in a big "Foof!". Simple and foolproof... repeat on the next Tiger until the Germans surrender.

[Henri]

What we are reading here is a collision between two exaggerated points of view of WW2. It IS true that the Soviets could have won the war alone and bore the brunt of the war, but it is also true that the US effort was significant, as recognized by the Soviets themselves.

But it is ludicrous to claim that when the US came into Europe in 1944, it broke a potential stalemate and had a decisive effect. The Russians had already pushed the Germans back over a thousand miles and were on the Polish border. The Germans never launched any major offensive on the Eastern front after the Kursk defeat in 1943.

It is also a fact that the numbers of production are known and we don't have to speculate about what a German officer said to know the numbers (I don't have them in memory and don't have time to look them up right now).

The role of Africa is negligible in the overall view, the Germans had only two divisions there for most of that campaign, plus some Italians.

The casualty numbers are also well known, and the numbers quoted in Clash of Titans put the number of Soviet casualties at about 30,000,000 and the Germans at 13,000,000.

The largest casualties for the Western Allies occurred during Operation Market Garden, where more men were lost than at D-day. The German fought that battle with two SS Panzer divisions that were refitting and one of which did not have any tanks at all, plus a bunch of units consisting of near-invalids, old men and rear-area soldiers than had never seen any combat.By the standards of the important battle on the éEastern Front, a battle of this scale is a very small battle.

The oft-mentioned argument that the threat of an Allied invasionin the West kept 45 German division out of the EAst is misleading, since most of those divisions were refitting from the Eastern Front or consisted of third-rate units.

There are facts that are injdubitable and there are facts that are controversial. Here are the objectively verifiable ones:

1) The Soviets carried the brunt of the production AND of manpower throughout WW2 in Europe.

2) Lend-Lease had a significant effect on the Eastern Front.

3) The Germans lost most of their casualties on the Eastern Front.

4)Lend-Lease products only began to trickle into the Soviet Army after Stalingrad, and the Germans had lost the initiative on the Eastern Front by the time enough arrived to make a difference.

5)It is not true that the Soviet method of fighting involved human wave attacks, and that such attacks were used throughout the war.

6) It is not true that the Germans lost the war because they were continually fighting at odds of less than 3:1 in the Soviet favor.

The following are probably true, but subject to debate and impossible to prove either way.

1) The Soviets could have won the war all by themselves without any help from the West.

2)Lend-Lease did not have any decisive effect on the Russian victories.

3)The Western Allies delayed D-day for two years on purpose in order to let the Germans weaken the USSR.

Henri

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Henri:

What we are reading here is a collision between two exaggerated points of view of WW2. It IS true that the Soviets could have won the war alone and bore the brunt of the war, but it is also true that the US effort was significant, as recognized by the Soviets themselves.

I generally agree with the notion that the Soviets could have defeated the Germans in the long run, but only in the context of the US and Britain remaining in the war, and thus providing a potential threat of invasion. As you may know, Some 50 German divisions were deployed in France and Western Europe by 1944 (not including the 20-odd divisions deployed in Yugoslavia fighting the Partisans there), BEFORE the D-Day Invasion, most of them at full strength and a large portion of them quality units. Had the *potential* threat of invasion been non-existent, these 50 divisions would have balanced the ratio of force on the Eastern front to the point of stalemate -- ASSUMING, and this is a big assumption for the Germans in 1944, RATIONAL use of that force.

But it is ludicrous to claim that when the US came into Europe in 1944, it broke a potential stalemate and had a decisive effect. The Russians had already pushed the Germans back over a thousand miles and were on the Polish border. The Germans never launched any major offensive on the Eastern front after the Kursk defeat in 1943.

This is a bit of propaganda mixed with half truths.

The Soviets were on the "pre-war" Polish border, not the Demarcation line, and this itself was only a tiny portion of the prewar Polish border. The Germans still held Minsk and all points north of that, right up to Leningrad. In the south, the Ukraine and South Ukraine, the Soviet Winter offensive of November 43 to March 44 had largely stalled out in the Lvov / Carpathian border, and along the Bug.

The Soviets did not push substantially over to the Demarcation Line (also known as the Curzon Line) until after the Destruction of Army Group Center offensive which began on June 22, 1944 (18 days after D-Day).

The role of Africa is negligible in the overall view, the Germans had only two divisions there for most of that campaign, plus some Italians.

Not quite true. The Germans had a full Corps in Africa starting in 1941 before Russia was even attacked. There are several instances of the Germans pulling out one, two, or more, high quality formations from the Eastern Front to meet a potential or actual threat in the West. The Kursk offensive, according to Manstein, was halted because of the order by Hitler to transfer several panzer divisions to the West to take over and defend Italy which was at that point near to collapse, and had to be defended against the threat of invasion (which occurred in September, 1943). I don't necessarily agree with Manstein here, but it is a fact that Hitler ordered these formations to the West while the Kursk battle was still in progress, and his stated justification was as I (and Manstein) have said.

Moreover, the successful offensives by the British in November 1941 caused the Germans to redeploy an entire Luftflotte to the Mediterranean, or about 1/3 of all German airstrength in Russia.

The casualty numbers are also well known, and the numbers quoted in Clash of Titans put the number of Soviet casualties at about 30,000,000 and the Germans at 13,000,000.

These figures are over inflated on both counts. Germans suffered approximately 8.5 million casualties on the Eastern Front. The Western Front accounts for approximately 2 million (when surrenders are included). Soviet battle casualties and surrenders are about half the value you quoted. The total casualties to the Soviet Union are on the order of 25 million for the war, if you also include civilian losses due to starvation and extirmination programs in German-occupied areas.

The largest casualties for the Western Allies occurred during Operation Market Garden, where more men were lost than at D-day. The German fought that battle with two SS Panzer divisions that were refitting and one of which did not have any tanks at all, plus a bunch of units consisting of near-invalids, old men and rear-area soldiers than had never seen any combat.By the standards of the important battle on the éEastern Front, a battle of this scale is a very small battle.

Now, this type of statement is one that would cause a historian to begin to doubt your objectivity. There were elements of FIVE SS panzer divisions that fought in the area of Market Garden, a couple of Panzer Brigades, elements of two or three Wehrmacht Panzer division cadres, and some elite German parachute divisions.

The oft-mentioned argument that the threat of an Allied invasionin the West kept 45 German division out of the EAst is misleading, since most of those divisions were refitting from the Eastern Front or consisted of third-rate units.

You are slipping down the slope of objectivity and going straight into bias. Please do some serious research on the deployment and nature of German formations in the West prior to the D-Day invasion.

1) The Soviets carried the brunt of the production AND of manpower throughout WW2 in Europe.

Very sloppy wording. British/CW and US production was about 5 times Soviet industrial capability. If you mean they carried the brunt of combat in WW2, you are correct.

2) Lend-Lease had a significant effect on the Eastern Front.

Highly debateable, but a point with which I personally agree.

3) The Germans lost most of their casualties on the Eastern Front.

This is indeed an indisputable fact, if you mean battle casualties.

4)Lend-Lease products only began to trickle into the Soviet Army after Stalingrad, and the Germans had lost the initiative on the Eastern Front by the time enough arrived to make a difference.

Largely true.

5)It is not true that the Soviet method of fighting involved human wave attacks, and that such attacks were used throughout the war.

Also largely true. You are climbing back up the slope of bias and approaching quasi-objectivity.

6) It is not true that the Germans lost the war because they were continually fighting at odds of less than 3:1 in the Soviet favor.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

The following are probably true, but subject to debate and impossible to prove either way.

1) The Soviets could have won the war all by themselves without any help from the West.

2)Lend-Lease did not have any decisive effect on the Russian victories.

3)The Western Allies delayed D-day for two years on purpose in order to let the Germans weaken the USSR.

Henri

Something that is characterized as "probably true but impossible to prove." is a can of worms and probably has no place in a serious discussion, except as hypotheticals to illustrate points about which we have more solid facts.

[ October 16, 2002, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Henri]

Originally posted by dgaad:

The casualty numbers are also well known, and the numbers quoted in Clash of Titans put the number of Soviet casualties at about 30,000,000 and the Germans at 13,000,000.

These figures are over inflated on both counts. Germans suffered approximately 8.5 million casualties on the Eastern Front. The Western Front accounts for approximately 2 million (when surrenders are included). Soviet battle casualties and surrenders are about half the value you quoted. The total casualties to the Soviet Union are on the order of 25 million for the war, if you also include civilian losses due to starvation and extirmination programs in German-occupied areas.

[Jordy]

DAK Order of Battle

-Kasta Group-------------

104 Artillery Command

288 Panzergrenadier Regiment

580 Recce Battalion

-19 FlaK Division--------

102 FlaK Regiment

135 FlaK Regiment

-15 Panzer Division------

8 Panzer Regiment

115 Infantry Regiment

33 Artillery Regiment

-21 Panzer Division------

5 Panzer Regiment

104 Infantry Regiment

-90 Light Division-------

155 Infantry Regiment

200 Infantry Regiment

361 Infantry Regiment

228 Artillery Regiment

-164 Infantry Division---

125 Infantry Regiment

382 Infantry Regiment

433 Infantry Regiment

220 Artillery Regiment

Ramcke Parachute Brigade-

[Melchett]

For a nice OOB layout of the DAK on 23-October-1942 (Alamein), check out:

http://freeport-tech.com/wwii/011_germany/42-oob/42-10-23/corps_dak.html

Clicking on any of the divisional units leads to higher levels of unit detail. Note that this display shows only the DAK component of the combined German-Italian army. To explore the OOBs of all armies at Alamein, start here and click to your heart's content:

http://freeport-tech.com/wwii/500_eto/42-10-43_north-africa.html

[ October 17, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Melchett ]

[dgaad]

That's the spirit boys! Keep firing! Now, keep your eyes open for other misinformation!

[ArmenianBoy]

Once again I'm deeply annoyed and disturbed by peoples ramblings about what they seem to know about WWII. This quote in particular by Henri:

"As for Manstein's contention that the Kursk battle was interrupted in order to send German units to Italy, that is about as valid as his contention in "Lost victories" that the Germans were winning the Battle of Kursk when they gave up. If my memory is correct, only the Herman Goering Division was moved out."

The Battle of Kursk, ill advised as it was to attack so late and with no chance of surprise, was still at the point, when it was called off by Hitler, where it could have gained momentum as Manstein had reserves moving up. The Herman Goering Division never took part in the battle of Kursk, I believe it had been in Tunisia in the beginning of 43. The main reason why Army Groups South's forces were told to halt the attack, was so that the II SSPzC could be sent to Italy due to the Allied landings on. Also, there were some concerns about the Russian attacks around Orel. However, only one division from this corps actually reached Italy due to other problems that threatened Karkov. Hitler was very worried about an Italian capitulation, rightfully so, that is why such a concern for reinforcing that region. The truth of the matter is that the Kursk battle was a battle of attrition where the Russians paid a much higher price in men and equipment. However this ratio was not at a level where the Germans could make good there loses while the Russians could. If you want a good book about the Battle of Kursk, I suggest you read 'The Battle for Kursk' by David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:

Once again I'm deeply annoyed and disturbed by peoples ramblings about what they seem to know about WWII. This quote in particular by Henri:

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

"As for Manstein's contention that the Kursk battle was interrupted in order to send German units to Italy, that is about as valid as his contention in "Lost victories" that the Germans were winning the Battle of Kursk when they gave up. If my memory is correct, only the Herman Goering Division was moved out."

</font>

[Hubert Cater]

However, you may find this silly, but forums are an opportunity for those of us who may have spent years reading about these topics to attempt to clear up this disinformation.

Well said Dgaad, and since this topic has strayed far enough from the original thread, I'll move this to the General Forums so the rest of the discussion can continue there.

Hubert