|
feedmegin posted:I seem to recall that book comes with a foreword urging NATO countries to spend a lot more money on defence to prevent the scenario in his book from occurring, and the author was in the Army at the time. One suspects he had a vested interest in playing up the doom, much as the defence establishment of the time would publish books about the Soviet Union's new superweapons and/or incredibly huge hordes of tanks in order to get more funding. The author is a bit of a nut, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters Check out his map published on how a better middle east would look like. Especially the new Saudi Arabia called Saudi Homelands Independent Territories (S.H.I.T)
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:Most of the time, tanks engaged infantry or positions, which necessitated high explosive rounds, and in post-war studies, the most important factor in combat between tanks was not who had the better gun or armor, but who was able to engage first. Interesting. Does anyone have links to these studies or a summary of what they concluded?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Plate armor did not really come into vogue until the Late Middle Ages, but knights on horseback were the battle-winning element of European and Middle Eastern armies (the latter not always knights in the feudal sense, but still armored cavalry). Yes, they were worthy of the 'posthumous glory' we give them. In fact, armored cavalry was such a powerful force that even at the height of their power the Ottomans maintained a 3:1 ratio of cavalry to infantry in their armies because of how effective it had been in helping their rise; this was one of the reasons they failed to keep up with European powers, who began to use the more versatile and powerful infantry more and more. While milites were important by the time of full plate armour (late 14th - early 17th century) their value was very much on the wane. While some people attribute this to the inherent superiority of infantry which was unlocked by the Swiss, Flemish, and Scots over the course of the 14th century, I do not think this is so. The battles they won on force of polearms and infantry in this period are due in large part to environmental and terrain factors or serious blunders on the part of the enemy commanders. There is also little evidence that these infantry were substantially better than that fielded by earlier armies, which had been defeated with sensible use of cavalry forces. It seems more likely that their importance waned due to the rising cost of maintaining them, compared to the cost of maintaining infantry armies, and the susceptibility of all to gunpowder weapons, especially artillery. This is also a time when royal power was significantly expanding in many European kingdoms, and the landed aristocracy as a whole was slowly de-militarising and shrinking due to a variety of factors I won't go into here. This means that you have a smaller pool of cavalrymen to draw from, and because of the reasonable effectiveness of trained foot you get less interest in maintaining a body of horsemen. Further, decent horse armor doesn't come around until the late 15th century, and is yet again another expensive piece of kit that can all go to waste if someone gets shot. That is not to say that fully armored horsemen were useless in this period, of course. Not at all. Indeed, in hand-to-hand fighting they retained their superiority over infantry, provided they (and their horses) were sufficiently armored. There are at least two occasions, at Ravenna in 1512, and at Ceresole in 1544, of fully armoured Gendarmes riding through whole pike squares and coming out the other side, and throughout the Italian wars the cavalry proved to be an arm capable of decisive action in battle. All this is well and good, of course, but battles rarely win wars. Siege was by far a more important component of medieval warfare, and in the 16th century heavy cavalry did not have much of a role to play. While in the 11th-13th centuries cavalry were excellent at ravaging, intercepting supplies and launching raids the heavier cavalry of the 14th century onward was less capable, and sieges relied less on ravaging and starving out or negotiating with a garrison and more on artillery. Also your point about the Ottomans is misleading. The Ottomans' cavalry during their rise was by and large not fully armored, but rather composed of more traditional Turkic horse archers. They did have heavy cavalry, certainly, but they were not nearly so common. quote:In a similar but contrary vein, video games like to give the Knights Templar some sort of elite status when in fact they lost just about every single pitched battle they were involved in, and many times the defeat could be directly attributed to the actions of the Templar. They were incredibly shrewd bankers and lenders and decent enough at defending the castles they were given, but were completely useless in the field. The Templars were elite. I have never heard a serious suggestion otherwise. It is true they were usually in losing battles but that is due to numerous issues, the most prominent of which is that they were usually absurdly outnumbered. They operated as strong, cohesive units and, at their core, had a level of discipline and unswerving loyalty to the Latin Church that was unseen in Western knights. They trained often and vigorously as evinced by their Rule. They were held to a standard higher than other knights, and as battlefield tools they showed it. They were not invincible, and indeed were often poorly led, but they were better than the average knight. That is not to say that your average knight of the period when the Templars were active was anything shabby, of course. They were by and large very skilled at war, but Templars had a little bit extra.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
I completely agree with everything else you wrote, but for this...quote:Also your point about the Ottomans is misleading. The Ottomans' cavalry during their rise was by and large not fully armored, but rather composed of more traditional Turkic horse archers. They did have heavy cavalry, certainly, but they were not nearly so common. You have it flipped around. Timariot cavalry, which made up the majority of the Ottoman military, was armored in chain and was a shock troop first and foremost. It was comparable to the medium cavalry that the Byzantines, then the Hungarians, employed against it. The skirmishing cavalry employed by the Ottomans were mostly Tatar and Kurdish auxiliaries. These played a hugely important role in Ottoman conquests but were not the core of the Ottoman force. Cavalry played such an important role in the rise of the Ottomans that they refused to change and fell behind the infantry and artillery revolutions; they saw infantry as a supporting force and did not use artillery in the field because it restricted mobility, preferring comically large cannons that could only be used in siege. The only standing infantry until late in the Early Modern era were the Janissaries, who only made up about a quarter of Ottoman strength at any given time. quote:The Templars were elite. I have never heard a serious suggestion otherwise. It is true they were usually in losing battles but that is due to numerous issues, the most prominent of which is that they were usually absurdly outnumbered. They operated as strong, cohesive units and, at their core, had a level of discipline and unswerving loyalty to the Latin Church that was unseen in Western knights. They trained often and vigorously as evinced by their Rule. They were held to a standard higher than other knights, and as battlefield tools they showed it. They were not invincible, and indeed were often poorly led, but they were better than the average knight. That is not to say that your average knight of the period when the Templars were active was anything shabby, of course. They were by and large very skilled at war, but Templars had a little bit extra. Outside of Templar sources, nothing in the record bears this reputation out. A strict adherence to a monastic rule in their daily lives hardly proves anything about their abilities on the battlefield. The discipline you claim they showed runs contrary to what most chroniclers of the day had to say. Rather, in several major battles they were glory and booty seekers and brazenly refused to operate in coordination with other Christian forces; they were often outnumbered because they would rush ahead of their allies, and there is no way to tell if they were indeed better in combat than the average knight, though the evidence of their performance on the battlefield leaves one questioning that assertion. They were elite bankers. They were not elite soldiers. HeroOfTheRevolution fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:You have it flipped around. Timariot cavalry, which made up the majority of the Ottoman military, was armored in chain and was a shock troop first and foremost. It was comparable to the medium cavalry that the Byzantines, then the Hungarians, employed against it. The skirmishing cavalry employed by the Ottomans were mostly Tatar and Kurdish auxiliaries. These played a hugely important role in Ottoman conquests but were not the core of the Ottoman force. Cavalry played such an important role in the rise of the Ottomans that they refused to change and fell behind the infantry and artillery revolutions; they saw infantry as a supporting force and did not use artillery in the field because it restricted mobility, preferring comically large cannons that could only be used in siege. The only standing infantry until late in the Early Modern era were the Janissaries, who only made up about a quarter of Ottoman strength at any given time. Whoops, so I do. For some reason I was convinced the Timariot Sipahi were archers. Probably just confused with the Seljuks. My bad. quote:Outside of Templar sources, nothing in the record bears this reputation out. A strict adherence to a monastic rule in their daily lives hardly proves anything about their abilities on the battlefield. The discipline you claim they showed runs contrary to what most chroniclers of the day had to say. Rather, in several major battles they were glory and booty seekers and brazenly refused to operate in coordination with other Christian forces; they were often outnumbered because they would rush ahead of their allies, and there is no way to tell if they were indeed better in combat than the average knight, though the evidence of their performance on the battlefield leaves one questioning that assertion. What do you consider 'Templar sources'? If you mean sources written by Templars or Cistercians like Bernard of Clairvaux, there is plenty of other record that bears out their good reputation. It was the Hospitallers, for example, and not the Templars who broke ranks at Arsouf and charged the enemy without Richard's order. The Templars were heavily involved in the successful battle of Montgisard, and Ralph of Diss, a non-Templar observer, said this of the Templars in the battle, quote:Odo the Master of the Knighthood of the Temple ... had eighty-four knights of his Order with him ... Spurring all together, as one man, they made a charge, turning neither to the left nor to the right. Recognising the battalion in which Saladin commanded many knights, they manfully approached it, immediately penetrated it, incessantly knocked down, scattered, struck and crushed. Saladin was smitten with admiration, seeing his men dispersed everywhere, everywhere turned in flight, everywhere given to the mouth of the sword. He took thought for his own safety and fled, throwing off his mailshirt for speed, mounted a racing camel and barely escaped with a few of his men. An anonymous pilgrim's account written between 1167 and 1187, the Tractatus de locis et statu sanctae terrae, has this to say quote:The Templars are excellent knights, wearing white mantles with a red cross ... They go into battle in order and without making a noise, they are first to desire engagement and more vigorous than others; they are first to go and last to return, and they wait for their Master's command before acting ... As one person, they strongly seek out the units and wings of the battle, they never dare to give way, they either completely break up the enemy or they die. In returning from the battle they are the last and they go behind the rest of the crowd, looking after all the rest and protecting them. But if any of them turns their back on the enemy or does not act with sufficient courage, or bears weapons against Christians he is severely disciplined. That isn't to say that the Templars weren't occasionally impetuous, but this was dependent on the personality of their Master, to whom they were very obedient. They didn't always operate in the interests of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, that's certainly true, as when they ambushed and murdered the Hashishin envoy in 1173 or while under the control of Gerard de Rideford. It is also certain, though that until the mid-13th century, when fervor for crusading and charitable donations to the order dropped off, the Templars were warriors first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
Mister Gopher posted:The author is a bit of a nut, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters Ralph Peters posted:"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media." Ahahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 13:17
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:I think this is what he was talking about : Aye. That's right, is that. Also, thanks for your response RE rifles rgmt and Great War executions. Very interesting and much appreciated! Kingsbury posted:
How on Earth can you think this? In the Great War America did very little. They were in the trenches for less than five minutes relative to the other combatants and when they did get on the ground they were far from decision makers. In fact, the Germans would make fun of the lack of American skill and considered them walk overs. The biggest help America gave was a huge influx of healthy, rested fighters, which knocked the Germans morale. America definitely did not swoop in and "save the allies". Troubled Joe fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
Troubled Joe posted:The biggest help America gave was a huge influx of healthy, rested fighters, which knocked the Germans morale. Those healthy, rested fighters were the only healthy, rested troops in the entire war. Up until then there had been an open question as to who would collapse first. Now that the Allies had hundreds of thousands of completely fresh troops coming up, it was clearly not going to be them. The Americans were only in the war for "a few minutes" because the Germans saw the writing on the wall and called the whole thing off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Those healthy, rested fighters were the only healthy, rested troops in the entire war. Up until then there had been an open question as to who would collapse first. Now that the Allies had hundreds of thousands of completely fresh troops coming up, it was clearly not going to be them. The Americans were only in the war for "a few minutes" because the Germans saw the writing on the wall and called the whole thing off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
Smirking_Serpent posted:Ahahahahaha. I hadn't read his Wiki page before. Wow. Umm... yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:The Americans were only in the war for "a few minutes" because the Germans saw the writing on the wall and called the whole thing off. I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The Germans "called the whole thing off" in November 1918 because all their allies had by this point surrendered, the Hundred Days Offensive had the German army more or less in a rout, and the November revolution and the following abdication of the Kaiser threatened to plunge the country into civil war. Yes, the US helped to speed up the German downfall, but their contribution in WWI was nowhere near as powerful or vital as it was in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The Germans "called the whole thing off" in November 1918 because all their allies had by this point surrendered, the Hundred Days Offensive had the German army more or less in a rout, and the November revolution and the following abdication of the Kaiser threatened to plunge the country into civil war. The British, French, and Belgians were in a similar state though. The arrival of fresh American troops lessened the chance the Allies would mutiny before the Germans did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
The failure Spring Offensive was what truly defeated the Germans in WWI, not American participation. Granted, the Offensive was in direct response to the threat of American entry, but the actual American contribution to defeating the offensive was pretty minimal (this was when Pershing was refusing to play nice with the Allies). It was the French and Brits (particularly the Brits) who did the heavy lifting. Germany lost almost a quarter million men (jesus) in these attacks. That said, their defeat due largely to the fact their supply lines were awful, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the Brits (and French sorta) who got the job done (using German tactics from the previous year ironically enough). It is perhaps arguable that the follow-on offensive would not have been as effective without American participation, but Germany was pretty much done after losing so much of her best troops during Michael and Lys. It was only a matter of time at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:The British, French, and Belgians were in a similar state though. The arrival of fresh American troops lessened the chance the Allies would mutiny before the Germans did. Yes, the arrival of fresh US troops was a morale boost for the entente soldiers, but claiming that their arrival is what caused the Germans to sue for peace simply isn't true. It was the complete collapse of the German ability to keep waging the war that caused them to sue for peace, americans or no americans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:The British, French, and Belgians were in a similar state though. The arrival of fresh American troops lessened the chance the Allies would mutiny before the Germans did. Yeah, the arrival of American troops undoubtedly helped the morale of the Allied armies, and helped precipitate the March 1918 offensives, but to claim WW1 was 'America saving Europe' is ludicrous. The French army had already had it's moment of crisis in the 1917 mutinies. While they still had some fragilities, they were not as badly off as the Germans in 1918. The British, while there had been various wobbles in morale, were in a significantly better state by the end of 1917. British troops spent less time in the line and were paid more than the French and Germans. By the end of 1917, the British were producing much of the more sophisticated doctrine (not always distributed and incorporated into training though). They also had built up an experienced corps of officers and NCOs. The Americans were fresh, but they were also inexperienced, which showed in many of their first engagement in which they repeated many of the mistakes of 1914. They progressed faster than expected (they were not initially expected to be capable of significant operations until 1920), but still played a subsidiary role in the final phases of the conflict. In the 100 Days offensive, it's worth noting that the French and American armies combined captured half as many men and half as much material as did the British. It was an Allied victory though. American intervention was important, but it was not an American victory. quote:Also, thanks for your response RE rifles rgmt and Great War executions. Very interesting and much appreciated! You're welcome! Lobster God fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
How close call was the Russian civil war? Did the whites have a realistic chance of winning? And what kind of effect did the intervention of foreign powers have on the war? I know that it was a significant reason for Soviet paranoia of its neighbours in later years. Lobster God posted:They progressed faster than expected (they were not initially expected to be capable of significant operations until 1920), but still played a subsidiary role in the final phases of the conflict. poo poo, even thinking WW1 lasting into 1920's makes me shudder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
Glah posted:How close call was the Russian civil war? Did the whites have a realistic chance of winning? I would say it wasn't close. For one, the Reds were united in one common cause. Yes, there were disputes, but they were all Communist or Socialist. The Whites, on the other hand, ranged from anarchists to monarchists and everyone in between. The Soviets were masters at infiltrating the Whites as well, especially Kolchaks army. While the Soviets at their nadir controlled a relatively small part of Russia, it was an industrialized and compact area. Trotsky was an excellent military organizer, and they slowly gained ground at first, and then later vast swathes as the Whites disintegrated. The Allies, with the exception of Japan, didn't have the heart for a long fight. Kolchak was a naval commander, not a general, and it showed in his chaotic retreat and eventual execution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
How close was the RAF to losing the Battle of Britain?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 01:50
|
|
|
Kingsbury posted:How close was the RAF to losing the Battle of Britain? Heh...I wrote my thesis on this. I'm assuming by "lose" you mean how close was Fighter Command to being destroyed? The common retelling is that the RAF was on its last legs when the Luftwaffe shifted its focus from airfields and radar/commo nodes to London (this in early September). I don't really find this to be accurate; the RAF's fighter strength was increasing continuously increasing throughout the period and their pilot strength was remaining roughly steady (though they were still short and gradually getting less experienced). Short answer, there really isn't much evidence to suggest that they were particularly closet to breaking. That said, they really should have lost the Battle...if the German command had been anywhere close to competent (as Fighter Command certainly was), Germany had the superior equipment and personnel; they really should have won, and fairly easily at that. Three major mistakes that the Luftwaffe made, in addition to countless minor ones: 1. The E-7 variant of the 109 had been widely introduced at the time of the Battle, and its belly shackle had been used to carry a drop tank. I'm sure we all know that the 109 was crippled by its lack of range; a lot of people don't realize that not only that the E-7 was available in fairly large numbers from the beginning of the Battle, but that the Luftwaffe used their E-7s to carry small bombs on meaningless single raids. Had they concentrated their E-7s in hunter/killer groups with directives to do nothing but engage RAF fighters they could have had a drastic effect. 2. German intelligence did not correctly identified the ridiculously vulnerable aircraft and aeroengine factories and had efforts made to shut them down. As has been noted, the RAF never suffered much as far as fighter attrition; had these factories been hit repeatedly then RAF numbers might have been a lot more critical. 3. Goering had not changed tactics halfway through the battle forcing 109 pilots to close escort bomber formations. Prior to this, though the Luftwaffe was losing a lot of bombers, they were putting a LOT more pressure on the RAF through fighter losses. Forcing the 109 pilots to stay with the bombers eliminated their initiative which they never really recovered. tldr, the RAF was never particularly close to being destroyed, but they probably should have been.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Since it's been agreed that the Germans plainly could not win an extended war against the Soviets no matter what they did, was it ever possible that Barbarossa could have succeeded and knocked them out of the war quickly? Would this have ended the war on the Eastern Front before the Soviets could mobilize their massive military and industry? For example, if they took Moscow would the Soviets have sued for a quick peace or kept on fighting? This assumes that the goals of Barbarossa would have ever been possible with the limitations of the German force and the unexpected strength of the Russians of course. EDIT: Kingsbury brings up a good point. What would have happened if Stalin was unable to transfer all those Siberian divisions from the East to quickly reinforce and save Moscow because the Japanese intentions remained unclear? Not just meaning that the Japanese were planning to attack the Soviets, but what if their super spy was unable to find out what he did? Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
Bewbies posted:The common retelling is that the RAF was on its last legs when the Luftwaffe shifted its focus from airfields and radar/commo nodes to London (this in early September) That's something that bothers me whenever I'm trying to learn something about history. It always seems like people are trying to sensationalize things and make them seem much more dramatic than they really are. I wish people would just present the facts with as little commentary as possible. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Since it's been agreed that the Germans plainly could not win an extended war against the Soviets no matter what they did, was it ever possible that Barbarossa could have succeeded and knocked them out of the war quickly? I think if Japan had attacked the USSR instead of the US, things would have been a lot different. Kingsbury fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:EDIT: Kingsbury brings up a good point. What would have happened if Stalin was unable to transfer all those Siberian divisions from the East to quickly reinforce and save Moscow because the Japanese intentions remained unclear? Not just meaning that the Japanese were planning to attack the Soviets, but what if their super spy was unable to find out what he did? The net effect of higher Soviet/Japanese tensions would have been 5% of the forces fighting the Germans. Not nothing, but not a game changer. It probably would have limited the effectiveness of the Jan 42 counterattack that did so much damage to the Germans, but their logistical situation was so bad even into '42 that I doubt it would have made any difference. The Germans were getting ~35% of their daily supply needs (food, water, clothes, parts, shells, ammo) in October before the rain started, much less having enough to stockpile for an offensive. Typhoon was run on a shoestring and ran into severe supply problems as the spearheads got closer and closer to Moscow (and further and further from the German railheads). Once the snow hit the situation was even worse. Unless you want to stipulate no effective Soviet opposition, I don't see any way for the Germans to capture Moscow in 1941. Rail (and shipping) is how nearly all supply gets from the factories to near the front. The Soviets withdrew the bulk of their rolling stock before the Germans could capture it so the Germans literally had to re-gauge the entire Soviet rail net in order to be able to ship their supplies forward. In addition, their rail capacity had to support both their own industrial purposes (moving coal and iron ore to the smelters, moving parts from one factory to another, etc) as well as the army. Railroad capacity sized for trips inside Germany doesn't handle having to transit Germany + Poland + large chunks of Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Since it's been agreed that the Germans plainly could not win an extended war against the Soviets no matter what they did, was it ever possible that Barbarossa could have succeeded and knocked them out of the war quickly? Would this have ended the war on the Eastern Front before the Soviets could mobilize their massive military and industry? For example, if they took Moscow would the Soviets have sued for a quick peace or kept on fighting? Germany probably was unable to defeat the Russians, but a successful 1941-1942 campaign could have meant that the Russians would have ended up in a position where they are unable to defeat the Germans. The wild card of course is if Stalin could have withstood a blow like losing Moscow (and probably Leningrad along with it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
Wasn't Operation Barbarossa delayed a couple months to make room for the Yugoslavian campaign? If that is true then wouldn't the Germans have had an extra 2 months of campaigning time before the winter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 02:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wasn't Operation Barbarossa delayed a couple months to make room for the Yugoslavian campaign? If that is true then wouldn't the Germans have had an extra 2 months of campaigning time before the winter? It was delayed due to the campaign and also because manufacturing was slower than expected, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wasn't Operation Barbarossa delayed a couple months to make room for the Yugoslavian campaign? If that is true then wouldn't the Germans have had an extra 2 months of campaigning time before the winter? Some Historians (John Keegan, for example) claim that there wouldn't have been a difference since the two months would have put the start in late April, and there was still the spring thawing going on, making roads impassable. Not the conditions you'd want to have an armored offensive to start in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 17:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wasn't Operation Barbarossa delayed a couple months to make room for the Yugoslavian campaign? If that is true then wouldn't the Germans have had an extra 2 months of campaigning time before the winter? No, probably not. It's about the logistics of the situation. How well do you think the German Army would do if they had an extra two months of not getting even half of their daily supply requirements? Remember, this is nearly 4 million men with tens of thousands of machines, and hundreds of thousands of horses. You need thousands of tons of food and fodder and tens of thousands of gallons of fuel each day. It all has to be moved over a thousand miles on a rail line, driven by truck to the divisional staging areas and then picked up by wagons or soldiers. And all of that is just to ensure that nobody dies! If you add increased caloric needs of men and horses moving, the fuel for blitzing Panzers and the trucks that need to drive the fuel to them, the shells and bullets that they all fire while fighting the logistical demands increase even further. We're talking hundreds of train loads every single day that now have to travel almost a thousand miles to the railhead instead of three hundred miles. That's not even factoring in how many trains were traveling along the same few converted rail lines (different gauges, remember?). The spearheads were stopped from August until October due to the infantry doing pocket cleaning. In those two months the Panzer Groups (effectively Army sized formations) managed to build up barely enough supply to go another 140 miles; this compared to the 600 they did in the first six weeks of the war. The further the Germans got into Russia, the worse their supply problem got. Factor in partisans, poorly maintained rail lines, re-gauging, etc. and it was a total clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
How could the German command not see this happening prior to the operation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
ganglysumbia posted:How could the German command not see this happening prior to the operation? I'm pretty sure a lot of them did, but Hitler overruled them. Anyway, Wins. Do you think the Germans could have retained a lot of their conquests if they recognized that things were not going their way and offered a truce before things went to hell prior to the end of 41? Or would Stalin have had nothing to do with peace with them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm pretty sure a lot of them did, but Hitler overruled them. You really think Stalin gave a poo poo about how many men died? No way he would have made peace unless they were marching through Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm pretty sure a lot of them did, but Hitler overruled them. Most of the generals were overconfident by the time of Barbarossa, so they were fully behind the operation. Of course, by this point, a lot of the high-ranking generals that disagreed with Hitler were no longer in positions in power. They thought they would be able to strike fast enough so that they really wouldn't have to worry about long-term logistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
ganglysumbia posted:How could the German command not see this happening prior to the operation? Given the cost of that assumption turning out wrong (and their lack of planning for further campaigning) it's very easy to argue that it was a dumb call. However, it's important to try to understand things from their perspective. They were sure they could destroy the Soviet Army and they did so ahead of schedule; a truly amazing feat. Every other nation had collapsed with the destruction of their army. The Soviet Army and government deserve a great deal of credit for pushing on in a terrible situation. Every single counterattack they attempted in 1941, dozens throughout the summer and fall, failed horribly, leading to horrific losses. They lost their entire army and rebuilt it from the ground up, restructuring it to match the capabilities they had rather than what they wanted to have (thus the switch from divisions, which require a number of staff officers, to brigades which do not). Both armies did something unprecedented in human history. I wouldn't blame either side for underestimating the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Anyway, Wins. Do you think the Germans could have retained a lot of their conquests if they recognized that things were not going their way and offered a truce before things went to hell prior to the end of 41? Or would Stalin have had nothing to do with peace with them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 13:18
|
|
|
You have to remember that Barbarossa was, at it's heart, a racial conflict. The Nazis planned to murder and enslave a huge number of Slavs as a part of Generalplan Ost, and the Russians knew this. Both sides believed that losing the war would probably mean the extinction of their people, that is why they fought as hard as they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
The Eastern Front was really something unprecedented and unequaled in history. It almost seems that the entire world military history geared up to that moment. Two of the worst monsters in history heading the mst violent and repressive regimes the world has ever known. Tens of millions of men under their total command. No limits. No rules of honor. No regard whatsoever for civilians. I never get tired of reading about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Also remember that Russian partisans always tend to put up a fairly effective resistance, or at least harass the enemy convoys enough to slow them down significantly. During WWII, the USSR even airdropped instruction books in order how to fight lightly armoured forces without specialized (or often any) weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:The Eastern Front was really something unprecedented and unequaled in history. It almost seems that the entire world military history geared up to that moment. Two of the worst monsters in history heading the mst violent and repressive regimes the world has ever known. Tens of millions of men under their total command. No limits. No rules of honor. No regard whatsoever for civilians. Only one of those regimes was a violent, fascist state geared pretty much exclusively for war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:Only one of those regimes was a violent, fascist state geared pretty much exclusively for war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:Only one of those regimes was a violent, fascist state geared pretty much exclusively for war. Nazi Germany was less geared for war than the SU, they didn't fully mobilize until 1943. I am looking for a comparison of military spending in the years leading up to the war, but I am fairly certain that the SU was spending more. By the end of 1940 the SU had fought Japan, Finland and Poland and had annexed the Baltic states. The early Soviet defeats had more to do with the purges and with Stalin's ineptness than with a lack of investment in the Soviet military.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
On the subject or World War 2 and tanks. Well, how exactly do you see out of a tank? Plus, you can't just have some cut-out or infantry or other tanks will start lobbing bullets threw the opening, but there's glass covering it, won't that just get cracked and leave the crew blind?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 09:18
|
|