Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Russian army destroyed the crack German SS units in Hungary and Austria in 44-45 with the same supply situation they would have fought the allies with. They had far greater numbers than the US and signficantly better tanks. They were willing to take much heavier casualities and their air was a lot stronger than the German Luftwaffe the allies had encountered. I will have to respectfully disagree with your wargames. I have played them too, and I would happily match the Russian army in May 45 against the American one (the British would never have joined the US in that conflict).
The allied air force was unable to cripple the German supply system despite six plus months of extensive attacks on it, or they would not have fought as effectively as they did in Normandy (they were defeated by numbers not logistics). The Russians were far less dependent on supplies than the Germans were and their was no easy targets for the bombers to hit in Easter Europe unlike Western Europe.
I think there was a reason that they didnt fight it out like in war games. It would've been a dusey. Think about how bad WW2 was, now think about the two armies that won and that now know how to fight this war very effectively, even with both sides strategical differences. We would've killed alot of Russians, and they would have not thought much about replacing them.
Not really. This is something myself and others have war-gamed to death.
I could have forced the surrender of the Soviet Union within 30-60 days.
I'm not disputing the fact that the Soviets didn't have a lot of ground troops, because they did.
However, the US had 5 years worth of beans, bullets and band-aids stock-piled in France, and the Soviets were barely able to keep their units supplied.
The US, Brits, Canadiens, Aussies and Kiwis had something the Soviets didn't have, and that was thousands of bombers, and it isn't just the sheer number, it's the tonnage they could carry.
Give me two weeks and every bridge, rail line and rail yard between the Oder and the Dneister would be removed from the earth, and another two weeks to Dresdenize 6-10 Soviet cities, and that's it, game over.
So, it doesn't matter how large the Soviet army was, if they don't have fuel, ammo, and food, they're useless.
I agree. The thing that most then or now do not appreciate is the strngth of the US logistics. By the end of the war the US was producing what no one could have imagine previous as a war machine.The production figures especailly in thsoe times was really unbelievable.I mean even then they never actaully bothered to send the biggest; highest flying bomber to the european war. Hitler himself did not believe the numbers were possible.The USA miltary was growing at numbers never imagine by any power. By the end of the war from the washinton naval treaty it had produced more ships than all the others combineandand like 80,000 aircarft for the pacfic alone.Its was still gaining prodcution thru out the war and was a massive war machine.
Perhaps its just me, but I would not have believed that by 1944 the allies were going to endanger their alliance with Russia over Roumania. Or that the Russians would have allowed this. There were hundreds of Russian divisions. Two US airborne divisions would have made no difference at all.
Well, it was the Romanians that proposed the landing of two Allied airborne divisions onto their territory. That would seem to indicate their belief that those Allied troops, in conjunction with their own, would be sufficient to push the Germans out; especially with the Germans being pressured by the Russians at the same time. The Allies likely never would have granted the Romanian request for assistance, but that didn't mean they couldn't let them believe it might happen as an incentive to turn against Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
And of course these troops were going to be used in the West - something that should have been obvious to a military man regardless of what the allies said.
Why would this be "obvious" to Antonescu? Since September of 1943, nine months before the Normandy landings took place, there was already an active front in southern Europe; namely mainland Italy. Antonescu was not privy to the Allies future plans, but he, or anyone else for that matter, could conclude that at some point, the Allies would begin efforts to liberate Yugoslavia and Greece. Allied landings in either of these nations, but especially Greece, would bring them that much closer to Romania. Given that, I don't see it as being unreasonable for Antonescu to believe the Allies might use troops from the southern European theater to assist his country.
I agree. The thing that most then or now do not appreciate is the strngth of the US logistics. By the end of the war the US was producing what no one could have imagine previous as a war machine.The production figures especailly in thsoe times was really unbelievable.I mean even then they never actaully bothered to send the biggest; highest flying bomber to the european war. Hitler himself did not believe the numbers were possible.The USA miltary was growing at numbers never imagine by any power. By the end of the war from the washinton naval treaty it had produced more ships than all the others combineandand like 80,000 aircarft for the pacfic alone.Its was still gaining prodcution thru out the war and was a massive war machine.
But in the end does it not still come down to the will to fight another war like World War 2. If anything I'd see it going alot like other situations where nations have attempted to invade Russia, they get pushed only so far back and then the bodies and winter starts to pile up. And they would again be on their home turf and we were far far away all the while we would be attempting to rebuild our part of germany, france, Great Britian....I dont see the Soviets going to as much trouble. I completly understand as agree about the United States being able to outproduce the Soviets, however I dont know how many more American lives we'd put to risk operating that giant war machine. How much longer would it be before we didnt want to mettle in any furthur afairs concerning Europe?
Ah, the old U.S. versus Russia at the end of WW2. Obviously it's all hypothetical, but I believe the U.S. could have been succesful enough to force the Russians back into Russia and deny them domination of Eastern Europe. Whether or not the U.S. had the stomach for the war is an entirely different matter, but I think they could have militarily defeated the Russians.
People point to supplies and air power and this is where the U.S. advantage would lie. Having complete dominance of the sea and the ability to achieve air superiority would have given the U.S. the tactical and logistic advantages needed to win. However, the cost would have been staggering as the Soviets would not have simply rolled over.
The other side of the coin is the B-29 bomber. If the U.S. felt justified in using atomic weapons against Japan, whose to say they wouldn't have used them against the Soviets. Knock out a few key production and population centers with atomic bombs and the Russians would have been hard pressed to even attempt to continue the war. By 1945 tanks, troops, etc. didn't matter as much when one country had the ability to drop a single bomb and wipe entire cities off the map.
The game is always played out with the U.S. taking the offensive based on inner-circle discussions and plans, but one has to think that there were just as many Russian inner-circles discussing pushing the U.S. and Britain off the continent entirely. If any country would have started the fight, it would be Stalin's Soviet's. However, they didn't, which leads me to believe that they weren't as confident in their abilities as some people are 65 years later.
Yea Im not saying that the U.S could not have successfully pushed the Soviets back into Russia but then it comes down to the same old things, lives lives lives, however I do agree about the atomic bomb, I bet we would have used it, especially after we know how hard the Russians will fight. We dont want that kind of war after we just fought one. Reality is a crazy thing. What really happens never seems to match up with this hypothetical or that. No one really knows what an all out war with Russia would have met. One tactical blunder by us or one by them and the whole war is turned around. Both nations had huge armies with competent commanders. Would it all come down to one nation or the other requiring an unconditional surrender? Or would a peace be sought faster because recent memory of just what it took to get an unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany recently, as well as us knowing exactly how long the Russians withheld surrender previously in the war.
The other side of the coin is the B-29 bomber. If the U.S. felt justified in using atomic weapons against Japan, whose to say they wouldn't have used them against the Soviets.
It wouldn't have been necessary. Soviet air defenses were no match for high altitude aircraft. That makes aerial recon in daylight easy. Once I know where the division and upper echelon field trains are, I can use Liberators or Mitchell's to eliminate them and force surrender.
The US supply system is phenomenal, but even today, a company organically has 1-3 days of supplies, a battalion 3-5 days and a division 7-10 days. The actual number of days supplies will last depends on whether you're in light, medium or heavy contact. Assuming light contact, a division has only 18 days of supplies before the corps or other echelon logistics agency has to bring up supplies from the rear.
Once you create choke points in the rail and road systems, it's all over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krsheely
yea Im not saying that the U.S could not have successfully pushed the Soviets back into Russia but then it comes down to the same old things, lives lives lives...
Unfortunately, most countries used Lancaster Equations to evaluate combat, flawed as they were.
Still, it's obvious the US slowed down the tempo of combat, which is something Patton continually complained about.
My grandfather's division was in the Czech Republic at the end of the war, and they withdrew to yield to Soviet units, so I'm inclined to believe the Allies could have taken most, if not all of Eastern Europe before Soviet units arrived.
I also know that the British approached Romania about invading the Balkans, but the US continually refused to consider that approach. The British believed it would end the war faster.
Because the landings in Normandy were about a million times more important to the Allies than anything else -and airborne units were central to that battle. So much so that landing craft which might have permited lateral moves in Italy (and troops) were withdrawn for Normandy. If the allies were so focused on Normandy they would deprive their own operations in Italy to support it, they were highly unlikely to send them to Roumania.
Its hard for me to imagine how two lightly equiped paratroop divisions, far from US airpower, would have made much difference against the Germans regardless of what Roumania did. They lacked tanks, heavy artillery, or other critical assets.
Because the landings in Normandy were about a million times more important to the Allies than anything else -and airborne units were central to that battle. So much so that landing craft which might have permited lateral moves in Italy (and troops) were withdrawn for Normandy. If the allies were so focused on Normandy they would deprive their own operations in Italy to support it, they were highly unlikely to send them to Roumania.
So, back in March 1943, when General Antonescu first contacted the British and Americans to explore the possibility of negotiating a separate peace, he should have realized that his request for two airborne divisions to be dropped into Romania would never be granted because of the manpower and equipment requirements of the Normandy landings? An operation that he had no knowledge of until it actually took place fifteen months in the future? I'm sorry, that simply isn't logical. Antonescu was never clued in to what the Allies planned to do at any point in the war. He would have no way of knowing where they were going to strike, and with how much force. Instead, all he could do was assess the situation from afar, after the fact, and try to deduce what that meant in regards to Romania and what he wished to happen for his country. With the Germans being pressed on three different fronts by June 1944, it seems as if Antonescu hoped that those distractions, plus a little help from the Allies, would be all he needed to free his country from the Axis. That is not an unreasonable conclusion for him to have drawn; at the time.
And that is really the key here. Thanks to history, you here in 2010, know exactly what the Allies were planning to do, and ultimately did. That is a luxury that Antonescu didn't enjoy back in 1943-44. Therefore, to say something should have been "obvious" to him is not only unfair, but overlooks the advantage you have in making that judgment to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
Its hard for me to imagine how two lightly equiped paratroop divisions, far from US airpower, would have made much difference against the Germans regardless of what Roumania did. They lacked tanks, heavy artillery, or other critical assets.
Interesting. I take it then that you are not aware how few German soldiers were actually based in Bucharest and the surrounding area. So few in fact that when they attempted to reverse the coup and install a pro-German government to replace the overthrown Antonescu, they failed. By August 28th, a mere five days after the coup, the Romanian army had driven German forces from Bucharest and by August 31st, the Germans were in full retreat toward occupied Hungary. Two divisions of Allied airborne troops, no matter how lightly armed, may well have hastened the German departure from Romania. But more importantly, they would have signaled a real commitment by Britain and America to a Romania free of foreign influence, whether it be German or Russian. And that, even more than their firepower, is what Antonescu was really trying to get when he asked for the troops in the first place.
Last edited by TonyT; 04-17-2010 at 04:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
