- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The affect of the strategic Air War on the Eastern Front of WWII
Posted on 4/4/17 at 3:33 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 4/4/17 at 3:33 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth, I don't know how it works on a message board, but its always a good idea to cite where you get information from.
1
Posted on 4/4/17 at 3:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Are you trying to argue that the German soldier was any less fanatical and devoted to their cause than their Red Army counterpart? We both know better than that.
German soldiers had worse morale. This isn't debatable.
quote:
Terrible analogy to try and compare the total warfare of the Eastern Front of WWII to Vietnam. Two totally different wars that have no resemblance to one another.
You missed my point. I'm saying that strategic bombing does little to actually destroy the enemy.
quote:
Another bad analogy. The situation on the Korean peninsula in 1950 was nothing like what was seen at anytime on the Eastern Front in WWII. And the Chinese nor North Koreans were not exactly fighting with just PPSh-41. They were well equipped with, at that time, still very modern and capable, T-34/85 tanks and Soviet artillery. The only reason you read mostly of infantry "waves" is due to the mountainous terrain of Korea. The truth of the matter is the communists were very well supplied and armed. And keep in mind that the PLA was in 1950 a very veteran army, having just won the Chinese Civil War.
Once again missing the point about strategic bombing.
quote:
But what you're not seeing is without those factories and those supplies and resources, you don't even have an army. All you've got is an unarmed mob being led to slaughter. Yes the fighting formations are what wins a war, but it's the logistics train that that makes the difference. Without it, there is no army. And the simple fact is the Soviets did not have a complete logistics train in WWII. They just didn't.
The Soviets had adequate logistics. You're lying if you say they didn't. The Germans didn't destroy or even adequately cripple their ability to move soldiers and supplies across Russia. Also, Germany never tried to cripple the Soviet's resources outside of their campaign to take the Baku oil fields. The Germans were more focused on trying to destroy their fighting forces and manpower. The Russians had more than enough supplies to sustain a fighting force and would have won a battle of attrition with the Germans on the eastern front.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 5:37 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
This is absurd. The early German victories over superior foes in their Western offensives and Eastern offensives illustrate that coordinated mobile warfare and logistics can trump both numerical and technological superiority.
The Japanese were as willing as any modern age nation to sacrifice everything for victory and look where that got them. That's a nonsensical argument.
Agreed.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 5:39 pm to rmnldr
quote:Really? These guys fought to the death in a foreign country, I cant think of a more motivated army group than the German 4th, maybe the 1st Marines.
German soldiers had worse morale. This isn't debatable.
This post was edited on 4/4/17 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 4/4/17 at 6:06 pm to ninthward
Everyone fought to death in a foreign country. Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. After 1941 the average German soldier on the Eastern front had far worse morale compared to his Russian counterparts. 1943 broke the back of the Reich in terms of morale.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 7:49 pm to OweO
quote:
Darth, I don't know how it works on a message board, but its always a good idea to cite where you get information from.
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Here....
All information in the OP came from....
... are you ready for it?
... MY MOTHERfrickING BRAIN YOU IGNORANT CONEHEADED CRIPPLE.
Better?
Posted on 4/4/17 at 7:58 pm to rmnldr
quote:
Everyone fought to death in a foreign country. Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. After 1941 the average German soldier on the Eastern front had far worse morale compared to his Russian counterparts. 1943 broke the back of the Reich in terms of morale.
And yet somehow those German soldiers fought on for two more years with ever shrinking supplies and armaments while inflicting horrendous losses on a much better equipped and supplied (but not trained) enemy.
Even in the final battle in Berlin almost 100,000 soviet soldiers became casualties while they lost close to 2,000 tanks. And that's when they were facing only shattered and mostly unorganized remnants of "Kampfgruppes" made up mostly of old men and little boys with perhaps some left over Kregsmarine sailors or grounded bomber crews from the Luftwaffe to stiffen them up.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 7:58 pm to beerJeep
quote:
On the flip side, the allies absolutely would not have won without the Russians.
The US could have beaten Germany without Russia. Those bombs we dropped on Japan would work in Germany too.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 8:03 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Thoughts?
with the luxury of hindsight, we should have just let the Germans do their thing.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 8:03 pm to doubleb
quote:
US could have beaten Germany without Russia. Those bombs we dropped on Japan would work in Germany too
I'd argue that the allies would have offered negotiations well before the bomb was completed. You have to think, if Germany and Russia were at peace, all those men and material could have been used against GB. Could London hold out 3 YEARS of bombardment by the full strength of the luftwaffe/wehrmacht? I'm honestly not too sure. However, had the allies held on long enough, absolutely. Germany would have gotten glassed over.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 8:13 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Could London hold out 3 YEARS of bombardment by the full strength of the luftwaffe/wehrmacht?
Well, the Germans sort of suffered the same short comings in bomber capability as the Soviets, namely that they lacked any real strategic bombing force to speak of. The backbone of their bomber force were the DO-17, JU-88 and HE-111 bombers. All of these were medium bombers. Imagine had the US 8th Air Force been equipped with nothing but B-25s while trying to wage a strategic bombing campaign over Germany. That's what Germany was trying to do in bombing Great Britain.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:51 pm to beerJeep
quote:
While the lend lease helped exponentially in the early war, once production ramped up in the urals, it was done. There was no way Germany would overcome.
Without Lend/Lease, there would have been no way to move anything to the Urals, or to defend Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:57 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Logistics don't matter. Guns don't matter. Food doesn't matter. If you're willing to have your country completely wiped off the map, there is no hope for the other side to win.
Not even the Russian people would stand for that sort of slaughter. You're really overestimating the ability of the Soviet government to control the people, particularly if things got so bad that they'd be sending unarmed peasants against an industrial war machine.
This really comes down to the chicken and the egg. The thing is, the Soviets did not have the capacity to win this war without US aid. That aid was in the form of tanks, trucks, locomotives, food, uniforms, etc. AND tieing up German ability to manufacture weapons via strategic bombing.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:05 pm to Darth_Vader
"Affect" is a verb. "Effect" is a noun. Learn it.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News