Thread: U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

Originally Posted by Wolf Ritter

But they didn't. The human wave attacks were an act of desperation to defend Moscow and Stalingrad from being overrun, not a doctrinal practice.

Sorry, they did it through the entire war. Moscow and Leningrad were fortified cities and better defended for sure, but during the German retreat wave after wave of Russian armor and men were wasted on frontal attacks against von Manstein, the worst being the attacks outside Berlin when flanking attacks would have made the German entrenchment untenable. Zukov was trying to beat his rival to Berlin and gain favor with Stalin instead of taking care of his soldiers, he was a butcher.

Originally Posted by clarkatticus

Sorry, they did it through the entire war. Moscow and Leningrad were fortified cities and better defended for sure, but during the German retreat wave after wave of Russian armor and men were wasted on frontal attacks against von Manstein, the worst being the attacks outside Berlin when flanking attacks would have made the German entrenchment untenable. Zukov was trying to beat his rival to Berlin and gain favor with Stalin instead of taking care of his soldiers, he was a butcher.

Not Jukov only; all commanders of battles, in all countries, can be said to be butchers. That is why wars are disliked by most people.
.

Originally Posted by kowalskil

Not Jukov only; all commanders of battles, in all countries, can be said to be butchers. That is why wars are disliked by most people.
.

How about some accuracy here, and not throwing in your own biased opinion.

I think you would find the word you should have used is not most, but some. And To be absolutely honest, it should be a few.

Thank you for your opinion though, but why not keep it your opinion, and not try to thrust it to include everybody.

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

The Soviet Union supplied itself by far. It's a myth that Lend Lease was supplying them with everything, but I see it stated so often.

No. The Soviets could build an army...but they could not feed, clothe, or TRANSPORT it! Without Lend-Lease aid, they would have collapsed. No less than General Zhukov and General Seceretary Stalin said this. By 1945, more than 2/3 of the Red Army's trucks were American (which were head and shoulders superior to anything the Russians built), as were more than 80% of their locomotives and about half their railcars. (The USSR produced less than 100 locomotives 1941-45.) It was very common for a Soviet soldier to be wearing American uniforms, marching in American boots, eating American field rations, and riding in an American truck while supporting a Soviet tank army!

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

Well Germany never fully mobilised its industry.

But studies after the war found that bombing factories did little to halt production as factory equipment for making most things in WW2 was multi tonne lathes made out of solid iron or steel. A 500lb bomb landing a few metres away wouldn't do anything to them.

Production time was basically only lost due to workers going to the bomb shelters.

Forget dropping HE on factories. Drop HE on railyards, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure. Drop white phosphorous and napalm on factories.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

That was total production.

This is one table of production I came up with for 1944:

Tank and self-propelled artillery production (including German assault guns)
Country 1944
UK 4.600
USSR 28.963
USA 20.565
Germany 27.300

I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but it seems plausible.

If you compare armor to armor-every piece of Soviet's armor was equal or superior to American, and only the Brits had anything really decent.

The Sherman biggest point was its reliability- but the T-34's were very reliable also. But even the earlier T-34 varient was faster and better armored than a Sherman, and the T34/85 outclassed it on every level.

Really looking back and comparing American combat aircraft versus American armor developement in WW2 it is hard to explain how a country that could develope the P-51 and the Hellcat so fast, took so long to develope armor that could go toe to toe with German armor.

They had one limitation many fail to take into account: the tanks had to meet strict size and weight limitations for cross-Atlantic transport. I recall a Sherman Firefly DIDN'T. A T-34 or KV85 didn't.

However...I recall the late M4A3E2 with the high-velocity 76mm could match a T-34/85.

Another point: I recall the Soviets got most of their oil from the Caucusus. Flying from Iran, I suspect that B-17's, B-24's, and B-29's could make short work of that.

Why the hell would the US turn around make the same mistake the Germans made only four years earlier?

Invading Russia has always been a idiotic endeavor.

America learned a lot from the Civil War. While the Eastern Front faced 2/3's of Hitler's war machine, the Soviets took 10x the casualties. Keep in mind we fought in the Pacific and our front was much larger than the USSR's, the Japanese dispatched most of the Russian navy years before and they never recovered. The American armed forces were much better led than any other of the time because our politicians had to explain themselves to a voting public, and or military is under political control. No, the Russian generals were really bad, but some of the individual Russian units were the best. Go figure.

Originally Posted by clarkatticus

No, the Russian generals were really bad, but some of the individual Russian units were the best. Go figure.

The problem here is partially that you are confusing "Russian" with "Soviet".

The Soviet generals were only average in reality. And it is correct in when you say that some of the Russian units were among the best in the world.

However, not all Soviet citizens were Russian. You could tell where the units came from often times in the Soviet Union, by looking at their equipment, training and officers.

The best officers were invariably Russian. And the same goes for the best equiped units. But the units from other regions were not trained or equiped as well, and they were normally led by poorer quality officers.

And since this was the "People's State", the people really did not matter. Losses that would have seen a US General sacked were acceptable to the Soviets. Especially if those soldiers came from say the Ukraine or Sibera.