MP44

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

You have been pushing my buttons in this thread for weeks now, [...]

How? By asking for facts instead of accepting and unsupported spewing forth of stream of consciousness posts emanating from little more than an unshakeable belief in the superiority of all things American? Is that response by you the equivalent of running for mummy telling her that the bad man asked you to support statements by sources and that she should please do something about it? Well, tough. Maybe you need to find yourself a forum where an opinion supported by nothing more than an attitude is somewhat valued. If you can't even support what you post, what is the point of sharing it. This is not the local pub where your mates hang on every one of your words.

So, to reiterate - where does the opinion that 'The U.S. was still fairly fresh, and I personally believe we could have/should have beat the piss outta the damn red horde.' come from? Could it come from an analysis of that superb asset of the US Army that was the Repple-Depple system? From reading first person histories such as 'Roll Me Over' and 'Company Commander'? From an analysis of the force requirements estimated for the invasion of Japan? From looking at the contribution that UK/Canadian forces could have made to attacking the Soviet forces in eastern Europe? From estimating the role of air-power in such a conflict? From looking at the proficiency levels of armoured units on the Soviet and US sides, respectively, and passing judgement on the likelyhood of who would have persevered in battle? From looking at the logistical capabilities of the US and Soviet armies? From studying the battles of the Red Army in Poland and Romania?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Does anyone have these figures, or are we all to busy bitching at each other?

Bitching. You could maybe try the Zetterling work on Normandy on the casualty figures. AIUI he has gone down wading kneedeep in primary German sources. Websitee

You can also try the Dupuy Institute Forum herepage asking the question. As long as you don't challenge the orthodoxy that the Germans rocked, and the Soviets sucked *ss and only won by accident (I am exaggerating), instead restricting yourself to topical questions, you'll be fine there. Seriously though, they are great for statistical analysis of this kind.

[Snowbart]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Snowbart:

You have been pushing my buttons in this thread for weeks now, [...]

How? By asking for facts instead of accepting and unsupported spewing forth of stream of consciousness posts emanating from little more than an unshakeable belief in the superiority of all things American? Is that response by you the equivalent of running for mummy telling her that the bad man asked you to support statements by sources and that she should please do something about it? Well, tough. Maybe you need to find yourself a forum where an opinion supported by nothing more than an attitude is somewhat valued. If you can't even support what you post, what is the point of sharing it. This is not the local pub where your mates hang on every one of your words.

So, to reiterate - where does the opinion that 'The U.S. was still fairly fresh, and I personally believe we could have/should have beat the piss outta the damn red horde.' come from? Could it come from an analysis of that superb asset of the US Army that was the Repple-Depple system? From reading first person histories such as 'Roll Me Over' and 'Company Commander'? From an analysis of the force requirements estimated for the invasion of Japan? From looking at the contribution that UK/Canadian forces could have made to attacking the Soviet forces in eastern Europe? From estimating the role of air-power in such a conflict? From looking at the proficiency levels of armoured units on the Soviet and US sides, respectively, and passing judgement on the likelyhood of who would have persevered in battle? From looking at the logistical capabilities of the US and Soviet armies? From studying the battles of the Red Army in Poland and Romania?

Inquiring minds want to know. </font>

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Point of clairification. The Repple-Depple system was under drastic revision towards the end of the war. The situation was already much improved in spring of 45 as the US learned hard leasons from 1944's fighting. Divisional training camps and other measures to reduce the problems of piecemeal replacements with raw recruits were being implemented. (See Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy"). The U.S. Army of May 1945 was a far more effective organization than that of June 1944 both in equipment and tactics.

[tracer]

Darn it, I came by to stir some more ****, and it looks like Andreas and Dorosh beat me to it, well maybe next go around.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

I think this place should be for healthy dicussion of all things CMBB......and that includes OPINION. I have studied WWII most of my life, and my main area has always been the Eastern Front. I consider my self well versed on the subject, even though this may be looked upon with scepticism by you. If you want me to list all the books I have read I will do so, but I apologize that I won't be able to give you page numbers supporting my opinion. This has totally ruined the fun this all used to be.

If by "fun" you mean you reserve the right to spout off with unsubstantiated claims, then get pissy when anyone takes you to task for something you appear not to know much about, then I would suggest you could have that kind of fun at the junior high school debate club and probably won't miss threads like this.

Posting about your right to an "opinion" in this thread strikes me as akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.

But I wouldn't take it personally; I am sure Andreas and I have pissed each other off (on purpose, with showing of teeth) several times. Part of the way mad dogs and Englishmen debate history, I suppose. Grow thicker skin - and prepare to back up what you say. Even the supposedly "well versed" people (and very few people on this BBS have been foolish enough to claim to be one - I know I certainly am not "well versed" whatever that means) don't know perhaps a tenth of one percent of what there is to know about essential WW II history. Kind of the reason to discuss things here.

Don't be frightened, though, when the serious students like rexford, JasonC, John Salt et al actually ask you for more than "opinion"; it is not to belittle you, it is to help them shape their own understanding of these issues. Debate does take place in some worlds for more than just its own sake, and some worlds demand a heavier burden of proof than mere opinion.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Point of clairification. The Repple-Depple system was under drastic revision towards the end of the war. The situation was already much improved in spring of 45 as the US learned hard leasons from 1944's fighting. Divisional training camps and other measures to reduce the problems of piecemeal replacements with raw recruits were being implemented. (See Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy"). The U.S. Army of May 1945 was a far more effective organization than that of June 1944 both in equipment and tactics.

Good point - I would question though whether these systems would have survived a move to high-intensity fighting from early summer 45, as would have occurred with a conflict with the SU. I am away from my copy of Dobler at the moment, but IIRC these attempts to reform the system did not appear until the high-intensity fighting abated, and they did not constitute a root-and-branch reform of the RD system.

Compare this to the Wehrmacht, which had replacement units back in the Reich associated with formations, and more importantly a TO&E authorised replacement training unit (Feldersatzbatallion) in all (most?) its divisions in 1941. While these were not formally disbanded, AIUI they were often used to plug the lines when the infantry divisions became seriously over-extended following the failure to replace their losses from 1941 onwards, and especially with the move to 2-battalion regiments. Like the US divisions (I suspect that their schools were not set up as part of TO&E changes), German divisions sometimes set up their own training units by order of the divisional commander (auf dem Kommandowege), but these also found themselves in the line, with sometimes desastrous consequences - it could happen that all your future NCOs, i.e. your most promising leadership material got wiped out in some last-stand action.

Happened to 1. FJD when their platoon leader school was used to try and oppose the British landings at Termoli in the Adriatic in 1943. From one of the documents Mike dug out in the thread on German views of the Allied performance in Sicily some days back:

On 1 Oct the garrison of Termoli consisted of one railway company, one company of medical troops and a covering party of one platoon from 1 Para Div. In the vicinity there was also the N.C.O. reserve of 1 Para Div, on a platoon leaders' course. German records indicate that the railway troops, including the commander, were completely intoxicated and of no help; that the covering party was too weak to put up an effective resistance; and that the "Platoon leaders' course" fought desperately, was held at the front against the wishes of Heidrich, and was wiped out.

Just some food for thought on the matter.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Good point - I would question though whether these systems would have survived a move to high-intensity fighting from early summer 45, as would have occurred with a conflict with the SU.

A couple of factors would likely have improved the situation over the earlier times. Assuming a Soviet offensive (as we are talking about the "Russians taking out the British and Americans for Dessert"), the US wouldn't have faced a situation where divisions were constantly outrunning their supply and support train(including manpower supply) as they had in the fall 1944 advances, so that it would be easier for 1) Div. training centers to be maintained and 2) for wounded troops to be sent back to their original unit. Sometime around March of 45, returning troops to their original unit was made official policy.

Next a question for any that care to answer it. What was the Soviet replacement system? My best recollection (probably wrong) is that the Soviets often let their units go without replacements, preferring to constitute entire new formations.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Next a question for any that care to answer it. What was the Soviet replacement system? My best recollection (probably wrong) is that the Soviets often let their units go without replacements, preferring to constitute entire new formations.

IIMU that the Soviet replacement system was based on 'running down' frontline units (and quite a few were run down considerably in the last few weeks of the war). Once the unit had been severely depleted, it would be taken out of the line, and rebuilt in the rear areas, based on the cadre of survivors, and the HQ units. Grisha could answer this question better than I can. Basically a very different approach to doing things than any of the other armies involved AIUI. But not quite establishing entirely new formations. In these depleted units, the support formations and HQs would presumably build up a lot of experience over time. The PBI got shafted though.

I have a Soviet officer memoir in which the staff officer of a Guards infantry regiment talks about a long time during which his regiment was just one battalion. Another Polish officer from 1st Polish Tank Brigade "Heroes of the Westerplatte" saying that his entire Brigade consisted of a grand total of 4 tanks at some point in April 1945. In both cases though, it is quite clear that the formations were not on the main axis of advance, and therefore not first in line for reinforcements.

In general replacement seems to have been quite mission dependent, with units being filled up to strength (or not) as was deemed necessary to fulfil their mission. AIUI the commanders had quite a lot of freedom about the posting of replacements, which enabled them to concentrate forces at critical points.

[flamingknives]

I like to think of the forums as a Bar or pub. i think a University Student Union bar is a good example.

You've got the grogs in a corner discussing the minutaie of life, the universe and the occasional Monty Python joke, the vast majority hanging around and getting drawn into the occasional conversation and the Rugby players getting blind drunk and noisy by the bar (the Peng Challenge and Goodale's thread simulates this rather well.

As for the statistics, I think that Tunisia and the Golan Heights would be quite a good comparison.

I can't find anthing useful on the Normandy 'site and I waste far to much time here to join another BBS.

[argie]

I don't remember exactly where I read this, but got sticked to my mind as a very clever system: the Red Army divisions were supposed to fight until they reach something like 1/3 of their initial strength. With the division transformed in a sort of Rgt or Bde with heavy support, the second in command of the division, and all the seconds in all surviving echelons, take command and the remaining force was named after the new commander. The whole CoC was sent to the RVGK to render a new division around them, with returning wounded and new recruits and weapons. I don't remember if this new division took the name of the former, but surely they were from the same region in USSR.

That way you got very experienced commander at all levels in a new division and minimizes the flow of troops to the rear for refitting, as the fighting core was left at the front, where it was eventually merged with the divisions that replaced their former unit, keeping them up to strength after the attrition of the march from the rear to the front.

I'm not sure if I'm clear, or if it was the system truly used. But I think is pretty clever anyway

[argie]

Bumping to hear some real (besides Andreas 'dodge') grog comenting on how the Soviet replacement system worked.

[Tripps]

Wow, just read this entire thread in one go...only 90 minutes or so

My answer for the original question, would stg44's have prolonged the war.

Well, even if it was for 1 minute, then I guess the answer is yes

To compare US marines with bolt action rifles aiming shots against a mob spraying ak47's is pointless, thats like comparing Schumacher in a Fiat Uno against a 10 year old kid in an F1 car.

If you are going to compare AR v BA, keep the other variables as even as possible, and just because 'Hans' has an AR now, instead of a BA, does not automatically mean he will then not aim, because he can spray.

I agree with the opinion it would not have enabled the Germans to extend the war, say 8 months or so, let alone win, because of all the other variables (Air power, economy etc ), however, I do believe Allied casualties would have been higher.

(to put it bluntly, 10 men vs 10 men, all training and terrain etc being equal, and having one group comprised of BA vs the other AR, the range being the average for battle, IIRC; 1-200 metres? i'll take the side with AR any day thank you. I'd like to see anyone 'aiming' with a BA with 10 AR's firing at you, and then i'd like to see you try and flank the AR squad to get in close with grenades when the AR squad puts out a couple guys each side as well to suppress this flanking attempt.)

To the point of Russians v USA/Britain/Canada etc etc, my money is on the Russians.

No sea transport needed, out of range from long range bombers? (Moscow anyways ) More of everything in regards to Tanks/planes/infantry. More experienced, maybe not as well trained though.

I guess if it did come to blows, whatever Germans were left over would join the Americans and Poms, so that would increase the odds (I guess then all Germans would be exempt from war crimes, cos they would then be 'goodies' )

Atomic bomb? America didnt have any others IIRC, and I can't see Russia just rolling over and surrendering after Japan, they would have duked it out til they were nuked out of existence.

Anyways, my thoughts, I can in no way provide any reference to any of this ok? Well, I probably could, but i'm not about to shift my ass to please you unless you can provide good means for debate

[Engel]

Originally posted by Tripps:

I guess if it did come to blows, whatever Germans were left over would join the Americans and Poms,

Weren't there some notables (Patton, Eisenhower?) that suggested something like this? "Lets join up with what is left over of the Germans and take on the Commies" (or whatever their actually said).

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Engel:

Weren't there some notables (Patton, Eisenhower?) that suggested something like this? "Lets join up with what is left over of the Germans and take on the Commies" (or whatever their actually said).

That would of course have helped tremendously, seeing how well those same Germans had just handled the Soviets, winning every time on their way from Stalingrad to Berlin, with the Wehrmacht in a magnificent state in May 1945, over-equipped with well-trained, highly motivated, seasoned soldiers.

Ahem.

[Engel]

Originally posted by Andreas:

how well those same Germans had just handled the Soviets, winning every time on their way from Stalingrad to Berlin

I'd say that the Germans actually fought pretty well on the tactical level, given their piss-poor handling of operational and strategic levels. And they had experience on fighting the Soviets, which the US or the Brits didn't have. If such a situation would have emerged, I'd guess the Germans would have served more in the advisory role, rather than as active combatants (which they at that point lacked both the manpower and the equipment to do).

[ May 16, 2003, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Monty's Double]

Can someone please explain what the operational objectives of a putative war with the Soviet Union would have been? And how that war would have been preferable to the sixty years of relative peace that Europe has had since the Iron Curtain went down (then fell apart due to moth damage)?

[Engel]

A war against the Soviet Union would have been a natural result of the general anti-Communist sentiment in the Western world in general and especially in the US. As it was, the war that was actually carried out was Cold, but if some of the hotheads around at that time would have been given more support, it might have turned out to be Hot instead.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Monty's Double:

Can someone please explain what the operational objectives of a putative war with the Soviet Union would have been?

Nothing but a little speculation. This is a wargame board devoted to WWII games. Seems to be a natural place for a little harmless spectulation on the military outcome of a war between Sov. Union and the Western Allies following WWII. Not one word (until now) was given to a reason, nor is a reason necessary to look at the military aspects.

Now, as to outcome, I think it might be dependent on who was on the offensive. Soviets wouldn't have had much of a chance if they were the ones attacking, (already overextended supply lines would have come under serious air attack, U.S. had already proved rather tough on the defensive e.g. Mortain, Ardennes) but would have given a better account on the defense.

[Michael Emrys]

I have to comment on a few points in this post.

Originally posted by Tripps:

i'll take the side with AR any day thank you. I'd like to see anyone 'aiming' with a BA with 10 AR's firing at you, and then i'd like to see you try and flank the AR squad to get in close with grenades when the AR squad puts out a couple guys each side as well to suppress this flanking attempt.)

I generally agree with you, but it occurs to me that the BA guys might just wait until the AR guys have shot off all their ammo before making their move. This of course will only work if the AR guys fail to observe fire discipline and shoot off all their ammo before making a fighting withdrawal.

Atomic bomb? America didnt have any others IIRC...

When? On the day Germany surrendered, nobody had any A-bombs at all. The first one wasn't exploded in a test until over two months later.

But I doubt that hostilities would have opened between the Western Allies until after Japan had been laid to rest. At the time of the Japanese surrender, there was a third bomb in existence as components which had not yet been assembled and the US was capable of turning out two a month IIRC.

B-29s would have been capable of reaching Moscow at least from bases in Germany, and possibly the Urals as well (I haven't checked the map).

As to what the outcome of such a war might have been, I won't even try to guess except to say that it would have been messy and ugly. Anyone who stopped to think for a minute realized that, and nearly everybody (Patton was a notable exception, but then he was always a little odd in this respect) had had enough of war to last them for a while.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I have to comment on a few points in this post.

[snip]

At the time of the Japanese surrender, there was a third bomb in existence as components which had not yet been assembled and the US was capable of turning out two a month IIRC.

[snip snip]

Michael

ISTR that the US would have had to wait 6 months before building a 4th bomb. I'm not sure what production level they could have achieved thereafter, though.

[Vipez]

Originally posted by Troy Ilium:

Nahhhh....it wouldn't have made a difference. We would have dropped an atom bomb on them and the would have surrendered anyway.

Well.. germans had big impact on the development of the first atomic weapons. However, many of the German leading scientits were jews, and were forced to move abroad.. Like Albert Einstein. What if Germany never had massacred jews? What IF Hitler wouldn't have thinked that Germany does not need Atomic weapons, because he thought war would be over far before they reached on the ddevelopment of the actual weapon.

I think if Germans would have had the first atomic weapon a lot of things would be different now.. heh allways funny to think "What IF".. What would we all do, IF there would not have been World war II? then we wouldn't have any Combat Missions either

Edit: I was just thinking.. what IF Germens would have never used those crappy short barreled L/24 cannons on the Stug IIIs and PzIVs? I mean if they had used the long barreled L/48 from the begging a lot of things would be different..

Then even the mighty T-34s would have been completely helpless..

[ May 16, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Vipez ]

[Panzer76]

Just for fun I took the Sherman M4A2 and put it up against the T34M43. Well, the T34's werent keen to engage the Shermans, and it turned out that the Shermans beat the T34s pretty well. Now, too bad I cant use T34/85s against Fireflies

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Vipez:

.. heh allways funny to think "What IF".. What would we all do, IF there would not have been World war II? then we wouldn't have any Combat Missions either [/QB]

But then posts from Finland would probably be written in Russian.

In regard to these 'What Ifs?' I always remind myself: 'If my Aunt had balls then she would be my Uncle'