10-05-2005 03:29									#121
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Che, any time you're destroying your capital equipment you're playing a losing game.

The logic, if there was any, was that Jap fighters were getting shot down in droves so the Japanese High Command decided that it was better to crash the planes into ships. They thought taking out a ship was a good swap for a plane or even a few planes for a capital ship like a carrier.

My Uncle was on the battleship HMAS Australia which was hit by several kamikaze in Leyte Gulf. For most of his life he had a pronounced stutter which was a side effect of the terror of the Kamikaze attacks. He survived, as did the ship. He died last year, father of 6.

The Kamikaze were not entirely voluntary. They were escorted to their target by other fighters to make sure they carried out their mission and usually flew obsolete types until specialised aircraft were developed toward the end of the war.

	10-05-2005 03:44									#122
	Got spare money?

There are repeated statements that Soviet armor was better than US armor in 1945. That simply is not true. The US had the M26 Pershing at the end of the war. This tank took on the Tiger in and even up match, and was very effective against Soviet tanks in Korea.

http://www.michiganhistorymagazine..../tanks/m26.html

	10-05-2005 03:55									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned There are repeated statements that Soviet armor was better than US armor in 1945. That simply is not true. The US had the M26 Pershing at the end of the war. This tank took on the Tiger in and even up match, and was very effective against Soviet tanks in Korea. http://www.michiganhistorymagazine..../tanks/m26.html

One big problem - there was not very many present in Europe when it may be assumed that a war between Soviet and others would start. If they can't enter battle, it doesn't matter that they may be better.

	10-05-2005 03:59									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat Industrial power etc isn't the crucial point if there had been incidents starting a war between Soviet and the rest of the allies. At least not the first. The real question is if the English/Americn/French forces would be able to prevent the soviet forces thowing them into tha atlantic. If that doesn't succed, then there are no serious chance of another D-day.

I'm assuming we're taking off with the Soviets and the Allies where they were at the end of the war. There is no way the Soviets would push the Allies back into the Atlantic IMHO...

i) We're not talking about crossing Switzerland here... Driving back the Allies would take months (if possible at all) -> plenty of time to ship in reinforcements (see iii and iv below)

ii) The air superiority of the Allies

iii) The US/Britain already had supply lines fully operational. The Russians would have to stretch theirs and come increasingly under air attacks

iv) Yes, industrial capacity matters. With logistics in order, outproduce your opponent and sheer numbers will do the rest (both sides obviously had experienced soldiers and officers, giving quantity a pivotal role)

Carolus

	10-05-2005 04:05									#125
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola The Red Army was exhuasted and bleeding dry by wars end. It had been shriking steadily since spring of 1944. The USA was only partly mobilized, with much mapower left at home that had been supplying the Soviets. The svoiets would have been sweep from the air, and from the Baltic sea in short order, and would have have a very difficult time maintaining LOC to their front.

I am sure Hitler thought the same thing as he marched to his defeat in june 1941...

The main thing is that we would need a gigantic logistics line to get to Moscow.
Defeating Russia is something no one has managed in modern times.

Commies or not, the Ivans are hard to crack.

.

	10-05-2005 04:07									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think the only way to resolve this with any certainty is if someone makes a Civ III scn.

	10-05-2005 04:07									#127
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Or a CIV4 one, even better!

	10-05-2005 04:09									#128
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat One big problem - there was not very many present in Europe when it may be assumed that a war between Soviet and others would start. If they can't enter battle, it doesn't matter that they may be better.

Well, the Soviets couldn't use theirs either because they would have had no gas.

	10-05-2005 04:15									#129
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex I'm assuming we're taking off with the Soviets and the Allies where they were at the end of the war. There is no way the Soviets would push the Allies back into the Atlantic IMHO... i) We're not talking about crossing Switzerland here... Driving back the Allies would take months (if possible at all) -> plenty of time to ship in reinforcements (see iii) and iv) ii) The air superiority of the Allies iii) The US/Britain already had supply lines fully operational. The Russians would have to stretch theirs and come increasingly under air attacks iv) Yes, industrial capacity matters. With logistics in order, outproduce your opponent and sheer numbers will do the rest (both sides obviously had experienced soldiers and officers) Carolus

Yes, I too assume the defeat of germany borders.

i) That is certainly one of the tricky questions. I guess that both sides has their main troop/armour concentrated at a common line, so if there is a major soviet attack, the question is how well they can defend it, how many forces can be drawn back to defensive positions and how many reserves are present in the backyard.

ii) that point I think will be very important - unfortunately, the soviet airforce is stronger than the newly beaten german.

iii) I don't see much difference in the length of the supply lines - actually, the soviets would have an advantage because they wouldn't have to use ships.

Iv) industrial capacity only matters if you are able to deliver. That is why I think the outcome seriously depend upon the ability to keep a foothold in europe.

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex I'm assuming we're taking off with the Soviets and the Allies where they were at the end of the war. There is no way the Soviets would push the Allies back into the Atlantic IMHO... i) We're not talking about crossing Switzerland here... Driving back the Allies would take months (if possible at all) -> plenty of time to ship in reinforcements (see iii) and iv) ii) The air superiority of the Allies iii) The US/Britain already had supply lines fully operational. The Russians would have to stretch theirs and come increasingly under air attacks iv) Yes, industrial capacity matters. With logistics in order, outproduce your opponent and sheer numbers will do the rest (both sides obviously had experienced soldiers and officers) Carolus

Yes, I too assume the defeat of germany borders.

i) That is certainly one of the tricky questions. I guess that both sides has their main troop/armour concentrated at a common line, so if there is a major soviet attack, the question is how well they can defend it, how many forces can be drawn back to defensive positions and how many reserves are present in the backyard.

ii) that point I think will be very important - unfortunately, the soviet airforce is stronger than the newly beaten german.

iii) I don't see much difference in the length of the supply lines - actually, the soviets would have an advantage because they wouldn't have to use ships.

Iv) industrial capacity only matters if you are able to deliver. That is why I think the outcome seriously depend upon the ability to keep a foothold in europe.

	10-05-2005 04:16									#130
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned Well, the Soviets couldn't use theirs either because they would have had no gas.

Please explain why they wouldn't have any.

	10-05-2005 04:23									#131
	Got spare money?

Ok, ok. Point taken. Point taken.

My point is that logistics (supply lines) are in order for the Allies. True, they would have to use ships, but there would be no danger at sea (the wolfpacks are long gone and the Soviets have nothing similar)...

The Russians, on the other hand, would be under constant attack from the skies... Not sure their supply lines would run as smoothly as the Allies' (even considering they have to cross the Atlantic)...

Carolus

	10-05-2005 04:31									#132
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lancer I think the only way to resolve this with any certainty is if someone makes a Civ III scn.

Well, then it would boil down to who plays which side... If La Fayette played the Soviets (and the scenario is Civ 2) I would have to side with those who claim that Stalin would win...

If we stick to your original question, it's crystal clear (to me) that the Allies would win...

Carolus

	10-05-2005 04:35									#133
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex Ok, ok. Point taken. Point taken. My point is that logistics (supply lines) are in order for the Allies. True, they would have to use ships, but there would be no danger at sea (the wolfpacks are long gone and the Soviets have nothing similar)... The Russians, on the other hand, would be under constant attack from the skies... Not sure their supply lines would run as smoothly as the Allies' (even considering they have to cross the Atlantic)... Carolus

Don't know why my post was doubled.

Actually, the soviet supply lines would only be under attack at the last stretch. I don't think that US/Britain could or would move thier long distance bombers closer to the front.

You still seem to forget that soviet airforces are stronger than the german so there will not be the air superiority they was used to.

	10-05-2005 05:13									#134
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The Kamikaze were not entirely voluntary. They were escorted to their target by other fighters to make sure they carried out their mission and usually flew obsolete types until specialised aircraft were developed toward the end of the war.

This isn't my field so I bow to your knowledge, but I've read in a number of sources that the escorts weren't necessary as the Japanese gave the Kamikazes just enough fuel to make it to their targets.

My condolences on what happened to your uncle, AH.

	10-05-2005 05:21									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

http://de.academyhobby.com/afvidfhtm/1373.htm

AH, here's the only Sherman I've found over 76 mm. They were used by the IDF. Hope you can read German.

	10-05-2005 05:23									#136
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat Please explain why they wouldn't have any.

They would have had the same problem the Germans had at the battle of the bulge. They start the campaign with a full tank and may have a couple of reloads. Then they need major resupply. Where are they going to get it given that roads and railroads are going to be impassable due to American airpower.

Also, even if all US armored divisions were not equipped with the new Pershing, that would be remedied in months. Imagine George Patton with a Pershing-equipped tank army moving against masses of Soviet troops without gas?

It would soon be over.

	10-05-2005 05:27									#137
	Inflate your Upload Space

There must be some kind of indoctrinement in American history courses about air power. Really, that's pathetic.

The Germans simply didn't have the oil, the problem was not just about getting it to the troops. In fact they never had much trouble delivering other supplies to their spearheads, despite the so-called power of the American air force.

	10-05-2005 05:29									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris There must be some kind of indoctrinement in American history courses about air power. Really, that's pathetic. The Germans simply didn't have the oil, the problem was not just about getting it to the troops. In fact they never had much trouble delivering other supplies to their spearheads, despite the so-called power of the American air force.

Yah Vol!

But, the truth lies elsewhere, as can be expected when talking to someone educated by commies.

	10-05-2005 05:35									#139
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris There must be some kind of indoctrinement in American history courses about air power. Really, that's pathetic. The Germans simply didn't have the oil, the problem was not just about getting it to the troops. In fact they never had much trouble delivering other supplies to their spearheads, despite the so-called power of the American air force.

They didn't have the oil because of American bombers.

	10-05-2005 05:35									#140
	Inflate your Upload Space

Boris and Kuci are right. Once Germany lost access to the oil in Romania, they had no secure access to any great fields. They did pretty good (considering) in developing synthetic fuels, but once the Allies started bombing the IG Farbin facilities, it was all over for the German oil supplies.

Also, during the battle of the bulge, a panzer unit, led by one Jochem Peiper, came within 1,000 feet of one of the allies main fuel depot in Stavelot, Belgium. Not knowing where the dump really was (he was using an old map, plus armies generally don't put supply locations on maps accessable to the enemy), he turned around. The fuel supply was about the equivalent of the German armies requirements during the first ten days of the offensive.

Last edited by JohnT on 10-05-2005 at 05:41

	10-05-2005 05:37									#141
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Just facts, Ned. The Germans didn't have much trouble bringing what they could produce to their troops. Can you deny this?

Despite the heavy strategic bombing, the total tonnage moved by the German railway never went below 65% of its potential. That's an annoyance, but not something that can bring victory alone.

Also, have you ever thought that the Americans too faced supply problems? getting the stuff to their divisions in the mainland, with very few suitable ports, was a difficult task. It's not like they could have taken 3 million conscripts and sent them in the battle with the lift of a finger.

	10-05-2005 05:45									#142
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Boris and Kuci are right. Once Germany lost access to the oil in Romania, they had no secure access to any great fields. They did pretty good (considering) in developing synthetic fuels, but once the Allies started bombing the IG Farbin facilities, it was all over for the German oil supplies.

Perhaps. This is an argument I would hear. But from a map I remember seeing, there were synthetic oil factories just about everywhere, but never enough to compensate for a real supply. I doubt that all these plants were destroyed; more likely, the oil shortages were a combination of strategic bombings, railway clogging, and lack of "natural" oil.

Obviously air power was instrumental in achieving this, but the Russians had ample enough oil; certainly where the Allies couldn't completey stop the hopeless Germans producing some oil in a quantity sufficient for half-major offensives, it's beyond reasonable to claim they would have done better against a power with true oilfields and ample supply.

	10-05-2005 05:48									#143
	Got spare money?

Oh and BTW, Russia had 40% of its economy physically occupied (and pillaged) by the Germans, and yet it managed to keep its head above water.

If anyone think that America could have done better with a fleet of bombers, raise your hand.

	10-05-2005 05:51									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'd argue stalemate... thought it does depend on the aims of the parties involved.

Anyway, color me not suprised that che is trotting out statements of a Communist planet resulting and how the Commies would whip the west . I wonder why people even answer his claims when it is obvious that he started with his conclusion and shaded the facts to get to where he wanted.

	10-05-2005 05:51									#145
	Suffering from ads?

quote: But from a map I remember seeing, there were synthetic oil factories just about everywhere, but never enough to compensate for a real supply.

The decision to bomb the facilities was made in May, 1944. The first bombing of the facilities in Leuna was made on May 12th, causing Albert Speer to remark later "I shall never forget the date May 12. On that day the technological war was decided."

By September, the cumulative effects of the Allied bombing program dropped German synthetic fuel production from 92,000 barrels/day to 5,000/bbd by September 1944.

Source: The Prize, Daniel Yeargin, pp 348-349.

	10-05-2005 05:54									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Anyway, color me not suprised that che is trotting out statements of a Communist planet resulting and how the Commies would whip the west

I liked his statement of how grateful people were to the Communist resistance in France, so grateful that if the US/UK even thought of declaring war against the USSR then France would revolt.

	10-05-2005 06:05									#147
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ned They would have had the same problem the Germans had at the battle of the bulge. They start the campaign with a full tank and may have a couple of reloads. Then they need major resupply. Where are they going to get it given that roads and railroads are going to be impassable due to American airpower. Also, even if all US armored divisions were not equipped with the new Pershing, that would be remedied in months. Imagine George Patton with a Pershing-equipped tank army moving against masses of Soviet troops without gas? It would soon be over.

I know that I just add to the others, but there is a hell of a difference between having a lot of producing sites and have almost none.

Germany had no deliverance problems, they had production problems, wich the soviets didn't have. Who cares if you loose a lot of the supplilies if they are plenty ?

	10-05-2005 06:09									#148
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned A few of points: 1) The US and Britain had an overwhelming airpower advantage. No modern army has ever won against an oponent that had air superiority. 2) German armies would have joined the Allied side if we needed them. 3) The US was fielding modern tanks in '45, equal or better than Tigers. 4) The peoples of Eastern Europe would have supported the Allies, provided that we did not employ the Germans. The net, Allied victory was inevitable.

The M-26 Pershing with a 90 mm gun.

	10-05-2005 06:22									#149
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Joseph The M-26 Pershing with a 90 mm gun.

Yes, it's a nice piece, but it was not at the battlefield and therefore not relevant.

	10-05-2005 06:22									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat One big problem - there was not very many present in Europe when it may be assumed that a war between Soviet and others would start. If they can't enter battle, it doesn't matter that they may be better.

If we the US could turn out 15,000 Sherman's a month, what do you think. We just shift production to the M-26. The Soviets had no Navy to challenge our ships carry supplies to Europe.

Also the P-80 Jet Fighter was ready, but since the war in Europe was finnish, we did not send it over to fight. The Russian did not have a jet until after the war.