This is a discussion on A different outcome to WW2 within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Rich
The Russians wouldn't have just faced Shermans in 1945. We produced 2200 M26 Pershings in 1945 ...
The Russians wouldn't have just faced Shermans in 1945. We produced 2200 M26 Pershings in 1945 alone, and since the Germans didnt eat Shermans for lunch why would anyone think the Russians would. The Sherman was a better tank then a lot of people think if used correctly. Ike had over 90 full strength combat divisions available to him including 5 airborne and 25 armored. In 1944 alone Yank industry pumped out almost 40,000 fighter aircraft and 35,000 bombers.
The 2200 Pershings would not have been shipped by the time USSR rolled over Western Europe if they kept going.
Shermans not eaten for lunch by Germans... [Admin edit: Please becareful with what type of language you use. Being in the professionals group, you are expected to know and follow the rules and set an example for others.] My grandfather was a Sherman driver, he and 13 other Shermans faced off against 1 Tiger... Yes I said 1 Tiger That 1 German tank knocked out my GFs Sherman and 9 others, the remaining tanks picked up the survivors and hauled ass!!!. They couldn't penetrate the frontal armor and they couldn't manuever in back to hit her weak side. I've heard that story for the last twenty plus years so I believe it to be true since he would never tell such a lie.
The T-34 was much more successful agianst Tiger/Panther tanks than Shermans... this is fact.
By the end of the war the Soviets built 40,000 T-34s, considering the US total of shermans was only 50,000 (including allied production) I think Russia takes the land war b/c shermans sucked against heavy MBTs, they just weren't big enough! The T-34 was the premier heavy production tank of WWII, not the Sherman. The Soviets were the ones who did the heaviest fighting against the Nazis not the US! The breakout from Normandy only faced the pathetic remnants of the Third Reich that were not on the Eastern Front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
The Russians had consistently outran their lines of supply and communications. Both of which stretched out over vast distances in a situation made worse by German scorched earth and a real possibility of partisan activity in Eastern Europe should a conflict with the western allies start up. The Yanks and Tommies on the other hand had consolidated a chain of supply that was unparalled in warfare. Our forces were far, far more mobile and our dominance of the tactical airspace would have been complete thus applying even more pressure on the Russian supply chain.
Another point. If Stalin had been foolish enough to try this he would have sacrificed a great deal in the far east in resource rich Siberia/Manchuria. He never could have allocated the divisions needed to occupy this "freebie" if entangled in a conflict with the Allies and a Yank army that alone was almost the size of his own. Conversely he would have been risking much by weakening the far Eastern front.
Ok lets examine these statements... Russians outran their supply-line, Russians didn't need many supplies compared to Western forces, this is well known. If German scorched earth didn't stop Stalin from taking Berlin then it wouldn't stop them from going into a relatively green Western Europe. Eastern Europe at the time saw Russia as their saviors from Hitler... no revolts at that time would happen. Our forces were not more mobile, give me an example if that was the case, you can't use naval deployment b/c that took months to years to plan and execute.
Stalin didn't need to occupy Siberia and Manchuria, after 1939 at the battle of Halhin Gol Gen. Zhukov had destroyed the Manchukuo 23rd and killed 61,000 Jap soldiers and forced them into full retreat at the loss of only 7,000 of his own men. Japan signed a non-agression pact after getting their ass handed to them on a silver plater. The whole time Japan had air superiority but still lost, in 1939-44 air superiority didn't mean didly in ground combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
While its true we had forces tied up in the Asian theatre its also true that by April 1945 Japan was slowly starving to death, increasingly helpless against a naval blockade it had no defense against. Tinian and Iwo Jima were staging B-29s and Okinawa would be shortly over run so Japan would be destroyed as a modern society within months. We could easily defer any offensive operations, other then containment, in order to deal more effectively with a Russian offensive in Europe. In the previous 4 years the Soviets lost over 10% of their population in the war including 14 million military deaths. You really have to wonder about the level of enthusiasm the average soldier would have had if told they would now have to fight former allies because a dictator wanted them to. Especially with the breakdown in discipline already plaguing the Red army in the months following Germanys surrender.
With as little food and supplies as they had I'm suprised they went went as far as they did. I guess the threat of having your wife raped your children killed and permenant exile in Siberia was enough to get them to fight forever. The Red Army would fight until no one was left, that's just the way it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
And finally Yank and Brit forces were well positioned on the southern flank , The Middle East, North Africa, and had complete control of the Mediterranean. Like any modern military Russia's achilles heel was its fuel production chain, especially its Rumanian and Caspian oil facilities that were well within the range of our Southern front bombers and LR escort fighters. We had just paralyzed Germany and Japan with our fuel war and there is no question the Soviet Union would have gotten a similar strategy.
The Russkies didn't need the Med, they needed no sea-trade at all with Eastern Europe under their heels. Do you really think the allies had bombers that could hit Caspian oil facilities... I don't think so. The only reason those countries within bomber range joined the allies was to join the winning team at the Paris Peace treaties. If the Soviets had continued I'm sure those alliances would have been shattered with the Soviets on their borders. The Soviets had more fuel than was sitting in the Middle East, that was the least of their worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Ive seen variations of this argument in many forums and almost to the one they are expressed in one paragraph statements without supporting facts. Most cant even quote the rough balance of forces between the allies now turned antagonists. In other words if someone here thinks the reds would have "wiped us off the map" please take the time to explain exactly how, and with what.
Not that it matters. On 16 July 1945, in the New Mexico desert, events unfolded that made the question of who had the better medium tank pretty irrelevant. Had they attacked the Soviet empire would not have made it to 1946.
I am rather offended that you think my arguments are un-original. I have yet to argue WWII outcomes on any other forum and have yet to see this on other boards b/c I don't frequent them. I have given you several paragraphs debating every single point you made with primary and secondary sources. I am a history major and will back up my arguments with fact when possible, but you must accept that in hypotheticals as this you cannot rely on facts b/c they don't all apply to unreal scenerios.
It took a long time to make more atomic bombs, I doubt it would have stopped a suicidal Stalin before he overan Western Europe.
Last edited by WebMaster; May 16th, 2006 at 06:14 PM.
it was very hard to knock out an tiger in a defene position but the sherman was not the only one vulnerable to it there are stories of tigers on the russian front knocking out over 50 t-34s!(2 tiger tanks were confirmed to have done this)and the deadly 88 caused dred on both sides(but the tiger was not as effective on the offense as the t-34),also i love America but i still think we did damn little(land combat wise)COMPARED to what the soviets did against the germans
Could the high numbers of T-34s lost to Tigers be attributed to poor tactics? Its stories like this that always lead me to think of the Soviet army of World War II as being a blunt instrument, which relied on weight of numbers to accomplish anything. This maybe completley unfair as I know little in detail of their battles.
With everything appearing to be in his favor, why didnt Stalin roll on into Western Europe?
They came on in the same old way, and we shot them down in the same old way
I think your analogy of a blunt instrument is correct. From reading numerous first hand accounts of German tankers and grenadier's the Russian's seemed to rely on weight of numbers and showed little in the way of innovation below brigade level.
the soviet tactics often were blunt simply atacking along a broad front dissregarding losses,it differed much from the german tactic of encirclement thats why i think some german commanders were the best of the war(unlike patton and macarther who only won because of more men and material not superior tactics) and i think most german soldiers werent nazis but simply fighting for there homland,also tactics efected it some but in my opinion in an offensive atack a t-34 was better than a tiger,but if that tiger is dug in and holding a position it is not going to be overun by a t-34
Folks, when you want to make a point to somebody, the best way to do is NOT to call the other person an idiot or on "dope." It will only take you AWAY from the topic and AWAY from the point that you want your other friend to see and understand.
Those in Defense Professionals groups need to be extra careful when exchanging ideas and thoughts with other members.
the soviet tactics often were blunt simply atacking along a broad front dissregarding losses,it differed much from the german tactic of encirclement thats why i think some german commanders were the best of the war(unlike patton and macarther who only won because of more men and material not superior tactics) and i think most german soldiers werent nazis but simply fighting for there homland,also tactics efected it some but in my opinion in an offensive atack a t-34 was better than a tiger,but if that tiger is dug in and holding a position it is not going to be overun by a t-34
In his war memoirs, Gen von Mellinthin, a senior German staff officer during the russia campaign, had the utmost respect for his Russian opponents. Given that he had an incentive to play up the quality of the army that beat him, his respect seems genuine. In stalingrad and kursk for example, the Germans did play right into Marshal Zhukov's plans. There were many cited examples of deceptions inflicted on the Germans, such as sneaking an entire tank army across a bridgehead.
What i wonder is why the Americans didn't use a better tank design than the sherman. They had the ability and resources anyway. The Sherman had features that the russian crews who got some of them appreciated; comfort, waterproofing (rain apparently entered t-34's), less tendency to brew up when hit, etc. However it had an old suspension which gave it a rather high profile compared to its peers, and wasn't as tough as the t-34's.
The Sherman had features that the russian crews who got some of them appreciated; comfort, waterproofing (rain apparently entered t-34's), less tendency to brew up when hit, etc.
Sorry, KGB, I have to take issue with one point you made. The air-cooled petrol (gasoline) engine of the Sherman earned it the unfortunate nicknames of the "Ronson Lighter" (as it never failed to catch) by the Brits and the rather grisly "Tommy Cooker" by the Germans. The T-34, by contrast, had a much less flammable diesel engine.
what were some of the british tanks of WW2 like dont hear much about them did they perform very well?
Despite having two of the foremost tank theorists (Fuller and Liddell-Hart) who were very influential to the likes of Guderian in Germany after WW1, British tank philosophy in WW2 was deeply flawed. They believed there should be two distinct types of tank; the Cruiser for fast mobile work and the Infantry tank used in infantry support. The Cruisers (Crusader, Cromwell etc.) were under-armed, under-armoured but very nimble (often with Christie suspension and a detuned version of the Spitfire's Rolls-Royce Merlin called the Meteor), while the Infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Churchill etc.) were under-powered and REALLY slow (they made the Tiger look like a greyhound!) as they only had to keep up with the infantry, had fairly ineffective guns, but were very well armoured.
It wasn't until the last year of the war that the British had a decent Cruiser tank in the guise of the Comet which had an excellent 77mm gun while the heavy Cromwells justified their existence as a platform for various "special" vehicles like the "Crocodile" flame thrower, bridge layers and mine clearers where their lack of speed didn't matter.
The scandal is that the "Top Brass" knew that the allied tanks (including the Sherman) were far inferior to the Panther and Tiger but logistically it would have been too much to re-tool to make something better before the D-Day deadline (Stalin was impatient for the second front to open). They were prepared to use quantity over quality with the resultant high losses in Allied tank crews, who had been told before setting off across the English Channel that their equiptment was just as good if not better than the German's. The resultant encounters came as a very nasty shock indeed.
It wasn't until the last 2 months of the war that the British, having finally re-thought their design philosophy, fielded what was to mature into the finest tank of the 50's, namely the Centurian, but by that time it was too late to see combat
Last edited by mikehotwheelz; May 19th, 2006 at 01:13 AM.
Italians in WWII = pathetic, when I heard the stories of Italians taking beatings from Ethiopians I almost laughed. Hitler said about Italy as an ally " It's better to have weak allies than no allies at all" and after he had to spend so much manpower defending Sicily he said "We'll, maybe I was mistaken."
Hey..My Dad was a partisan under Tito in Yugoslavia..He's still round(pushing 80) At his very young age at the time he was a Combat soldier with the Sandrac' Regt.(I think thats the name anyway) And he told me that after Italy capitulated the partisans found themselves swamped with Italian units wanting something to fight for..he said an Italian mountain unit joined his regiment and that they were some some of the hardest bastards he's ever fought alongside..Later he was stationed in Sidi-Bel-Abes in a different uniform and had NCO status in a Company consisting mostly of former SS, Hitler youth..etc due to his ability to speak Deutsch and I dont think he'd even bother comparing them with the Italians..point I'm trying to make is Ideology isnt always enough especially if its Full of bollocks like fascism was..a soldier needs a reason to fight..the former SS didnt have that anymore..they were just looking for somewhere to hide..the Italians post capitulation had a reason, their homeland was in turmoil and anything they could do to make their former allies lives hell seemed a good idea...
By the way the Allies + the partisans nearly started fighting over trieste at the end of the war..my old man was there too and he reckoned the partisan forces were given notice to go into the NewZealand held sector at night and take the knife to Freybergs boys..Never happened in the end though, Freyberg pointed out to the partisan C.O's that allied airpower was supreme(thanks to some well timed fly-by's by Tactical air command.) and a couple days later the Kiwi's woke to find the partisans had abandoned their forward positions...(Just as well otherwise I would probably never been born in good old NZ)...Full scale conflict in Trieste could have potentially brought the West + the Soviets into direct conflict with each-other, as this was before Tito's rift with stalin..Bit of history there for ya, its not official history..but Dad dosent talk to many people 'bout the war so I figured I'd share some of his experiences with ya...I think I'm starting to ramble?!?
there may have been some places were italian units were doing well but when i think back on there performance its seems very pathetic masses of italian armor being captured in yugoslavia italain efforts there and in africa being saved by german forces in my opinion it was one of the worse performances in militarty history
Yeah, i guess at a command level upwards the italians were outclassed tactically not to say they didnt have good commanders..A lot of the troops lacked morale too, especially after Albania, and the army was operating gear that was obsolescent in '39..the Navy was relatively well equipped though as was the airforce(by about '42) +both arms generally proved themselves to be well-trained and capable opponents.
Just a pity Italy's re-equipment programmes didnt start kickn in till '43..By then Il'duce's goose was cooked...
as a footnote many Jagdwaffe pilots in the Med and in Reich defense had quite a high reputation of their italian counterparts..but felt the italian airfoce upper echelons were utter meatheads..
Last edited by Boolag; May 20th, 2006 at 01:46 AM.
In a more relavent issue re the topic, dont forget the Soviets were engaged in very fierce yet brief combat in Manchukuo..er..Manchuria involving a LOT of manpower + equipment, after this they got acess to jap Biological+Nuclear research( and many of the nuke scientists)...I recall a rumour that the japs tested a similar -but smaller-device to smallboy somewhere round that general reigon, maybe korea? Can anyone back me up?
.I recall a rumour that the japs tested a similar -but smaller-device to smallboy somewhere round that general reigon, maybe korea? Can anyone back me up?
Never heard anything like that before, but it sounds bogus. I can't believe that a country who had huge problems supplying it's own troops with decent, up-to-date equiptment had the recources or facilities to come close to building such a device.
so I figured I'd share some of his experiences with ya...I think I'm starting to ramble?!?
