Good news on future of BOM

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

As of 05/01/45, Soviet truck park

domestic trucks 58,1%
imported trucks 32,8%
captured trucks 9,1%

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by DD_crash

It seems to me that the land war was mainly in the east and the air war was in the west.

There is a US propaganda film "target for today" (I think) that talks about this as being a deliberate strategy for grinding down the German war machine.

Although there was a major Tactical air war in the east which will hopefully be modeled soon in the BOM sim!

Cheers!

[Kaiser]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

In essence, without western aid the Soviet armies could not have pushed German forces out of Eastern Europe. Specifically the western allies (and mainly the US) supplied the soviets with over 240,000 trucks and lesser but highly significant quantities of aircraft and tanks as well as vast quantities of other war materials. The supply of western food stocks (SPAM) was crucial to the maintenance of viable soviet land forces up to and following the Battle of Stalingrad. And one shouldn't underestimate the contribution made by British and US land forces prior to the D Day landings in 1944. .

You in vain think that it is not undervalued.
Financial assistance from the West USSR has a great appreciation.
We store this memory.

But it would be better if the allies fulfilled their promise at the set time ... During the visit of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov to London and Washington allies have promised a few months later disembark at continental Europe. But they have not made this neither in 1942 nor in 1943, when we were carrying particularly heavy losses. From May 1942 to June 1944, while the Allies been putting off the opening of the second front in the fierce battles left more than 5.5 million Soviet troops.
And other important nuance. If for us a problem of a second front was a matter of life and deaths of millions of Soviet people, for the Allies it was an issue strategy: where appropriate to disembark? They had landed in Europe, hoping determine the advantageous post-war map of the world. The more so was already obvious that the Red Army independently able end this war and get out on the coast of the English Channel, providing the USSR for the winner leading role in the postwar reconstruction of of Europe. What the Allies could not allow.

As for supplies lend-lease, we must understand if Hitler took possession resources of the USSR, the next on turn would be Britain. Churchill as a wise politician could not allow of this.
And after all if to look at the history of impartially, all countries of the world then, except Germany and its allies, looked at the Soviet peoples with hope. June 22, 1941, Winston Churchill stated that although he and anti-communist, but the security of Great Britain and the U.S. is now entirely in the hands of Russia. June 24 a similar speech said, and the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Newspaper Times, mouthpiece of financier-oligarchical elites of the West, has also stated that the fate of humanity is decided on the Eastern Front. Today reminisce then in effect, the whole world behind the scenes reached for our country as a magic wand, few want. Therefore through myths and falsifications of role of the USSR in war every way lowered.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Kaiser

You in vain think that it is not undervalued.
Financial assistance from the West USSR has a great appreciation.
We store this memory.

But it would be better if the allies fulfilled their promise at the set time ... During the visit of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov to London and Washington allies have promised a few months later disembark at continental Europe. But they have not made this neither in 1942 nor in 1943, when we were carrying particularly heavy losses. From May 1942 to June 1944, while the Allies been putting off the opening of the second front in the fierce battles left more than 5.5 million Soviet troops.
And other important nuance. If for us a problem of a second front was a matter of life and deaths of millions of Soviet people, for the Allies it was an issue strategy: where appropriate to disembark? They had landed in Europe, hoping determine the advantageous post-war map of the world. The more so was already obvious that the Red Army independently able end this war and get out on the coast of the English Channel, providing the USSR for the winner leading role in the postwar reconstruction of of Europe. What the Allies could not allow.

As for supplies lend-lease, we must understand if Hitler took possession resources of the USSR, the next on turn would be Britain. Churchill as a wise politician could not allow of this.
And after all if to look at the history of impartially, all countries of the world then, except Germany and its allies, looked at the Soviet peoples with hope. June 22, 1941, Winston Churchill stated that although he and anti-communist, but the security of Great Britain and the U.S. is now entirely in the hands of Russia. June 24 a similar speech said, and the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Newspaper Times, mouthpiece of financier-oligarchical elites of the West, has also stated that the fate of humanity is decided on the Eastern Front. Today reminisce then in effect, the whole world behind the scenes reached for our country as a magic wand, few want. Therefore through myths and falsifications of role of the USSR in war every way lowered.

All true except that the Allies were not in a position to launch a successfuil invasion before June '44. Even then it was not an "easy victory". I expect Stalin would have liked them to try and destroy themselves on the beaches while drawing German forces away from the East and leaving Europe open to him although its not certain he would have succeeded without the Allies strategic devastation of the German war machine and logistics capability. I believe Stalin had no Strategic air capability of his own. In any case my own belief is that Hitler could never win a war against the Soviet Union. The Allies were well aware of Stalin's appetite for the rest of Europe and History shows that he was as bad as Hitler in many ways. Even so, the Allies had to watch Poland (the reason the West went to war) and other countries slip from one oppressive dictator to another. But its true, the Soviets suffered huge casualties on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was the WWII killing ground that mirrored the Western Front killing ground in WWI, only more so.

[Al Schlageter]

Kaiser, have you heard of a place called Dieppe?

I did not know that Italy was not part of continental Europe.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kaiser

You in vain think that it is not undervalued.
Financial assistance from the West USSR has a great appreciation.
We store this memory.

But it would be better if the allies fulfilled their promise at the set time ... During the visit of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov to London and Washington allies have promised a few months later disembark at continental Europe. But they have not made this neither in 1942 nor in 1943, when we were carrying particularly heavy losses. From May 1942 to June 1944, while the Allies been putting off the opening of the second front in the fierce battles left more than 5.5 million Soviet troops.
And other important nuance. If for us a problem of a second front was a matter of life and deaths of millions of Soviet people, for the Allies it was an issue strategy: where appropriate to disembark? They had landed in Europe, hoping determine the advantageous post-war map of the world. The more so was already obvious that the Red Army independently able end this war and get out on the coast of the English Channel, providing the USSR for the winner leading role in the postwar reconstruction of of Europe. What the Allies could not allow.

As for supplies lend-lease, we must understand if Hitler took possession resources of the USSR, the next on turn would be Britain. Churchill as a wise politician could not allow of this.
And after all if to look at the history of impartially, all countries of the world then, except Germany and its allies, looked at the Soviet peoples with hope. June 22, 1941, Winston Churchill stated that although he and anti-communist, but the security of Great Britain and the U.S. is now entirely in the hands of Russia. June 24 a similar speech said, and the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Newspaper Times, mouthpiece of financier-oligarchical elites of the West, has also stated that the fate of humanity is decided on the Eastern Front. Today reminisce then in effect, the whole world behind the scenes reached for our country as a magic wand, few want. Therefore through myths and falsifications of role of the USSR in war every way lowered.

In 1942 and 1943 the Western Allies inflicted quite a number of casualties on the German and Italian Armies as well as diverting after November of 1942, the majority of the Luftwaffe. They captured over 250,000 men in Tunisia, and invaded Sicily and Italy, driving Italy out of the war, and forcing the Germans to send large numbers of troops to Italy to maintain their lines there. At the height of the Kursk battle, the Germans were forced to send their elite 1st and 2nd SS Panzer divisions, plus quite a number of other Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions to Italy from the East Front. So to say the fact that the Western Allies did not invade France in 1943 was a failure on their part is not completely accurate.

There is no question the Soviets did the majority of the fighting on the ground on the European Front in WWII, no one can deny their contributions and suffering. At no time was less than 50% of the Wehrmacht deployed on the East Front, much of the time the figure was closer to 65%.

Still the facts are WWII was won by an alliance of countries fighting against Germany, Italy and Japan. The Japanese were beaten by the Americans and British fighting on their own, the Soviet declaration of war in 1945 had almost no effect on the outcome in the Pacific and was more a political decision by Stalin to allow him to occupy parts of Manchuria and Korea for resource rather than for noble reasons.

The Soviets would have had much more difficulty in succeeding had they not had the assistance of American and British Lendlease in the form of supplies and war materials. Fuel supplied, or things such as locomotive engines are sometimes overlooked when the overall contributions are accounted for.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

A real examination of the facts would show that Germany should have been defeated in the first year of a war with the Soviet Union.

Why were they not?

One answer: Stalin

The Soviets had one of the most advanced armies in the world in 1936, with tanks which were superior to others, aircraft which were on a par, and leaders who were innovative and far thinking. Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky was a brilliant tank theorist who was a leading Marshal in the thirties, he invented armour use doctrines know as "Deep Operations" which mirrored the German Blitzkrieg tactics of deep penetration by armoured forces and the surrounding and pocketing of enemy forces. He created the beginnings of a Soviet tank force which would have been a dangerous opponent for the Germans.

But Stalin perceived him as a political opponent, and set a series of false accusations during the purges of 1936 which led to a show trial and the execution of Tukhachevsky. With him went the needed reforms to the Soviet Army. Worse, almost all the innovative officers who were supporters of him were also purged, many executed or sent to the Gulags. In their place Stalin appointed old incompetent cronies of himself, yes men and toadies who were selected on the basis of their unquestioning loyalty, not for their skills as officers.

As WWII started, the Soviet army was in a state of paralysis, commanded by incompetents who were afraid to speak out regarding needed reforms or new ideas lest they too would be either shot or sent to Siberia.

And Stalin added to this failure by refusing to acknowledge the warnings the Germans were about to invade. He insisted troops not prepare defenses, not plan for a German attack and not make any movements which might give offense to Hitler. This happened despite reports from his own troops of German reconnaissance overflights, infiltration by German scouts, etc. etc.

The result was that on May 22nd 1941 the Soviets were caught completely unprepared, and the commanders on the spot were frozen in place because of Stalin's insistence no one had authority to respond until he gave his personal say so.

The Soviets had their armies on the Frontier nearly completely destroyed in a matter of a few weeks.

It wasn't till Stalin retreated into a depression in the fall of 1941, leaving most of the running of the war to his generals that the situation began to recover. That and the fact that many of the disgraced and purged officers were brought back to positions of authority. Generals like Rokossovsky, one of the premier tank commanders of the war on the Soviet side, and the man who led Operation Bagration, also known as the 'Destruction of Army Group Center', was an example.

All of the tactical doctrine formulated by Tukhachevsky was re-adopted by the Soviet Army and formed the basis of the tactics used at Stalingrad, Kursk and other major battles.

Had the Soviet Army been led by Tukhachevsky at the beginning of the war, with his armoured doctrine and formations in place, there is very little doubt in my mind the Germans would have run into a brick wall, and been soundly defeated.

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

A real examination of the facts would show that Germany should have been defeated in the first year of a war with the Soviet Union.

Why were they not?

One answer: Stalin

The Soviets had one of the most advanced armies in the world in 1936, with tanks which were superior to others, aircraft which were on a par, and leaders who were innovative and far thinking. Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky was a brilliant tank theorist who was a leading Marshal in the thirties, he invented armour use doctrines know as "Deep Operations" which mirrored the German Blitzkrieg tactics of deep penetration by armoured forces and the surrounding and pocketing of enemy forces. He created the beginnings of a Soviet tank force which would have been a dangerous opponent for the Germans.

But Stalin perceived him as a political opponent, and set a series of false accusations during the purges of 1936 which led to a show trial and the execution of Tukhachevsky. With him went the needed reforms to the Soviet Army. Worse, almost all the innovative officers who were supporters of him were also purged, many executed or sent to the Gulags. In their place Stalin appointed old incompetent cronies of himself, yes men and toadies who were selected on the basis of their unquestioning loyalty, not for their skills as officers.

As WWII started, the Soviet army was in a state of paralysis, commanded by incompetents who were afraid to speak out regarding needed reforms or new ideas lest they too would be either shot or sent to Siberia.

And Stalin added to this failure by refusing to acknowledge the warnings the Germans were about to invade. He insisted troops not prepare defenses, not plan for a German attack and not make any movements which might give offense to Hitler. This happened despite reports from his own troops of German reconnaissance overflights, infiltration by German scouts, etc. etc.

The result was that on May 22nd 1941 the Soviets were caught completely unprepared, and the commanders on the spot were frozen in place because of Stalin's insistence no one had authority to respond until he gave his personal say so.

The Soviets had their armies on the Frontier nearly completely destroyed in a matter of a few weeks.

It wasn't till Stalin retreated into a depression in the fall of 1941, leaving most of the running of the war to his generals that the situation began to recover. That and the fact that many of the disgraced and purged officers were brought back to positions of authority. Generals like Rokossovsky, one of the premier tank commanders of the war on the Soviet side, and the man who led Operation Bagration, also known as the 'Destruction of Army Group Center', was an example.

All of the tactical doctrine formulated by Tukhachevsky was re-adopted by the Soviet Army and formed the basis of the tactics used at Stalingrad, Kursk and other major battles.

Had the Soviet Army been led by Tukhachevsky at the beginning of the war, with his armoured doctrine and formations in place, there is very little doubt in my mind the Germans would have run into a brick wall, and been soundly defeated.

Yeah well, we'll never really know will we, because that isn't the way events played out. Hitler attacked the Soviets on the basis on the facts as he understood them to be at the time. The leadership of the Red Army had been all but annihilated throughout the 1930s, as you note. That he also knew. The consequences of those purges became apparent for all to see during the Winter War in 1939, when the Finns inflicted horrendous casualties on the Soviets (perhaps as many as 2 million men) by some accounts. It has also been noted elsewhere that Stalin's decision to systematically murder virtually the entire leadership of the Red Army may have come about through a dis-information campaign launched by the Germans. Whatever the truth of the matter, it was clear for all to see that the Red Army was in a very vulnerable state by 1941. Given that a confrontation between National Socialism and Soviet-style Marxist Leninism appeared inevitable, an attack on the Soviets in 1941 is not as absurd as it may at first appear. As events in the East unfolded, the Germans came very close to achieving their overall objectives. In 1942, very few people would have bet on a Soviet victory.

As regard's German so-called Blitzkrieg tactics, these are more myth than reality. There was nothing revolutionary about German combined arms tactics in 1939-41 and in reality these were just an extension of the tactics developed by the Germans in 1914-18. Although the Germans were no doubt flattered by the attention their endeavours received in 1939-40, they tended to attribute their battlefield successes to the fighting spirit of their soldiers, which they believed, and with very good reason, to be second to none (National Socialist furvour no doubt playing a role here). Blitzkrieg, as a concept, was essentially invented by the defeated western powers to explain and cover-up their dismal performance and subsequent defeat during the Battle of France.

Those who disagree with this view should have a hard look, in first instance, at the tanks the Germans were supposedly intending to use to spearhead their "revolutionary" new tactics in Poland and France. In the main these were composed of Panzer I and IIs, both essentially training vehicles and both essentially obsolete in 1939. The French Char B and the British Matildas, for example, easily out gunned and out-armoured their German counterparts and should have and could have easily eliminated their thin-skinned German opposition – if correctly used. The French air force, which was easily a match for the Germans on paper, simply failed to put in an appearance. The success of the German's Sickle-cut plan, which was an improvisation put together in haste in 1940, was very much due to the sheer guts and determination of the men charged with it's execution. A properly organized French defence could have and should have stopped it in its tracks, but in the face of German resolve, that defence simply crumbled away.

[MadBlaster]

you need to play more open general /panzer general 2. you forget, the 88 mm anti-tank guns.

[csThor]

Pardon my french, lonewolf, but 'Nuts!' The term "Blitzkrieg" is indeed no german invention but of course Goebbels was quick to utilize it. In a few significant sectors, especially in doctrine and force structure, the Wehrmacht was clearly ahead of its western opponents - be it the french with their defensively minded idea of warfare and tanks which couldn't decide whether to be infantry support or "exploitation" (and in the end they were neither) nor the british with the problems the nasty feuds of the 20s and 30s had left behind and which was mirrored in the ineffective structure of their forces (especially the armored divisions which were no combined arms formations in 1940). The doctrinal environment the term "Blitzkrieg" describes is nothing more than the traditional prusso-german way of war just with the added element of tanks and aircraft - it reenabled the Wehrmacht to prosecute the war as a war of movement on the operational level, just like its great ancestors under the Great Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Preussen, Friedrich II or Moltke the Elder.

If I may offer a book recommendation: Robert M Citino "The German way of War".