so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Rino
Demaw,
     Might as well hang it up, the current PC reworked version of
history being taught today is that the USSR won WW2 all by itself.

PC reworked version? Let me tell you one thing, but please, don't get offended, eh?

What we have here now taught at schools is that Western allies won WWII with some little help from USSR. That's why I am sometimes so ugly about this subject. Imagine a XX century history text book with only 10 pages about WWII, and only 2 pages about Eastern front!

Originally posted by Rino
I merely claim that the US helped Russia massively more than the USSR helped the western allies.  The air battles on the west front cost Germany alot of experienced aircrew and the bombing raids on France and Germany garnered alot more attention from Hitler than the raids from the east.

Bombing raids didn't stop or even severely damage German industry. Most of the experienced LW pilots were lost in Eastern front. Just read something about July-August 1941, LW units were demoralised by their losses, they have never met such opposition before. It's what they said, not "soviet propaganda".

Originally posted by Rino
   I stand by my assertion that Stalin was an opportunist..look
at the invasion of Manchuria at war's end.  He "cherry-picked"
a Japan that had been pounded to dust by the US and UK.

Beautiful! YOU are an opportunist yourself!

Look, in Yalta, 1944, Stalin promised to start a war against Japan in no more then three months after victory in Europe. Manchurian operation started on August, 8th, one day before that. And it was Soviet Army that destroyed main Japanese ground forces, 1.5 million Quantung army, on heavly fortified positions and naturaly protected by Gobi desert and mountain ridges.

Please compare it to allied promises to open a second front in Europe in 1942.

If your army was unable to perform operations when 1.5 million enemy force is destroyed in two weeks with total losses of less then 9000 men on Soviet side - then don't you please call it "cherry-picking".

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Angus
Wotan, I disagree with you. I think there is No way the Russians could have won against the Germans, had the Germans not been hampered by the Western Allies.
Note that at the Battles of Stalingrad and then Kursk, won by the Russians by a MARGIN, the Germans suffered in the exact time,  a crushing defeat in Tunisia (300.000 dead and captured), and Kursk corresponds with the Allied landings at Sicily (Bigger amphibious landings than Normandy).
In the biggest advances on the Eastern front in 1944, the Germans are being routed in France, and their transport is in shambles.

By a MARGIN!? 6th Army surrounded in Stalingrad, 300,000 men only as POWs is a victory by a margin?! Tell me any victory compared to Stalingrad on Western side, please!

Also please check the number of divisions that operated in Northern Africa and in Stalingrad operation.

Originally posted by Angus
The russians who fell were many more than the westerners, true is that. However wars are not won with ones own corpses. Remember Zhukovs words, "when my men enter a minefield, they move across it as if it was not there"
How many Germans fell on the Eastern front compared to all other fronts?

JFYI: 27 million lost by USSR in Great Patriotic War are mostly civilians. Combat losses of Soviet Army are about 20-30% bigger then German, mostly because of a 1941 catastrophe.

About Zhukov sending infantry to minefield: It's a quote from Eisenhower's memoirs. Zhukov explained this decision to order crossing a mine-field without removing mines.  Removing mines made it possible for nazis to re-group, and meet attackers in full strength. Plus - losses from artillery fire while mines were removed. He estimated that crossing mine field immediately will reduce losses by two times, and made this order.

Russians "winning by burying enemy in a mountain of corpses" is another myth. It's the third most famous myth about Russia after bears in the streets and fur hats that all Russians wear all year around. Oh, sorry, fourth: I forgot drinking vodka instead of tea

[Boroda]

Originally posted by B17Skull12
Those Russian Numbers are staggering.  Around 2000-3000 men are in a division.
that means around 4000-6000 men in a  Corps.
12000-18000 in an army.
im going to say around 30k-50k in a Army group.

somehow i know those calcuations aren't right.
 

Infantry division full size by the regulations of 1943-44 was 9435 men. Guards infantry division was 10670 men. Usually divisions didn't reach this numbers, but a division that had 2000-3000 men left was usually counted as completely destroyed.

BTW, what you call an "Army group" was called "Front".

[anonymous]

boroda and wotan from what i could find looks like 2.5 million german combat kia and 8.8 million russian combat kia. boroda russians did outnumber and outgun germans by large degree didnt they?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by demaw1
Bottom line Russia gets her bellybutton kicked by  afganistan..there for what 2 ..3 years?

Ass kicked? When? Did I miss something?

Originally posted by demaw1
 America defeats afganistan in 4 weeks turns around and rolls thru iraq in 8 weeks.  If America as ruthless as russia was there would be nothing in Iraq now but some morning and evening prayers.

Soviet troops got control (real control, not strange situation when "coalition" troops can't get out of their bases ) in several weeks. By the time when 40th Army began to withdraw - government troops controlled most of the country. AFAIK now "coalition" can't completely control Kabul...

USSR lost 13700 men in Afghanistan in 10 years. American daily losses in Iraq exceed Soviet losses in Afghanistan by several times now. 40th Army had about 30-40 thousand men in Afghanistan, please compare it to American numbers in Iraq. Also please think that bandits in Afghanistan got all they wanted from US of A.

Originally posted by demaw1
  You want to put chart up ?   put one up that shows how many russian troops dead compared to ours in afganistan.

Wait for 10 years and then we'll see.

BTW, how can you compare criminal unprovoked agression against Iraq to a legal assistance to legitimate government of Afghanistan? US is an agressor and deserves all possible international sanctions. Agressors must be punished.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Boroda
Ass kicked? When? Did I miss something?

 

Soviet troops got control (real control, not strange situation when "coalition" troops can't get out of their bases ) in several weeks. By the time when 40th Army began to withdraw - government troops controlled most of the country. AFAIK now "coalition" can't completely control Kabul...

USSR lost 13700 men in Afghanistan in 10 years. American daily losses in Iraq exceed Soviet losses in Afghanistan by several times now. 40th Army had about 30-40 thousand men in Afghanistan, please compare it to American numbers in Iraq. Also please think that bandits in Afghanistan got all they wanted from US of A.

 

Wait for 10 years and then we'll see.

BTW, how can you compare criminal unprovoked agression against Iraq to a legal assistance to legitimate government of Afghanistan? US is an agressor and deserves all possible international sanctions. Agressors must be punished.

boroda your information on coalition in afghanistan is way of. "cant get out of bases" is total nonsense. so is "cant completely control kabul". soviet version of control and what steps acceptable have nothing in common with coalition. dont even start with comments like "criminal". if coalition wanted to terrorize locals using murder and torture it would be easy to wind up like soviets and "think" we controlled things. muj for most part like us and uk they see difference in respect for human life as compared to actions of soviet union. you say attack on iraq is "criminal" are you denying that iraq in violation of ceasefire signed by hussein? stick with second world war you are close to reality there i think.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by anonymous
boroda and wotan from what i could find looks like 2.5 million german combat kia and 8.8 million russian combat kia. boroda russians did outnumber and outgun germans by large degree didnt they?

Smallest number of German losses that I have seen was about 5.1 million. This is a very complicated question. There is no absolutely reliable information on Soviet and German losses.

Here is a link: http://www.rsva.ru/rus_guard/2003-11/price_glory.shtml

Unrecoverable combat losses at the Eastern front including POWs between June, 22nd, 1941 and May, 9th, 1945. USSR: 11.26 million, Germany - 7.2 million.

[anonymous]

boroda i have been told that kruschev denounced some of things stalin did. you were in soviet military what was attitude of stalin purge of soviet military before second world war? what if anything did guys you serve with know and think about it?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by anonymous
if coalition wanted to terrorize locals using murder and torture it would be easy to wind up like soviets and "think" we controlled things. muj for most part like us and uk they see difference in respect for human life as compared to actions of soviet union.

Facts please. Looks like you watched Rambo-3 too much. Get real please.

At least Soviet servicemen didn't take pictures of tortured civilians like nazis in Belorussia. (sorry for this one, but I have to answer what you said)

USSR didn't "think" it controlled Afghanistan, it really controlled it.

Originally posted by anonymous
you say attack on iraq is "criminal" are you denying that iraq in violation of ceasefire signed by hussein?  

Would you be so kind to try explaining what you meant in other words?

[B17Skull12]

Originally posted by Boroda
Infantry division full size by the regulations of 1943-44 was 9435 men. Guards infantry division was 10670 men. Usually divisions didn't reach this numbers, but a division that had 2000-3000 men left was usually counted as completely destroyed.

BTW, what you call an "Army group" was called "Front".

Hehe i started to type 2nd Baltic front, since i remembered it from Kurland scenario.

Rgr i knew my calcuations were off, thanks.

[Angus]

From Boroda:
"Bombing raids didn't stop or even severely damage German industry. Most of the experienced LW pilots were lost in Eastern front. Just read something about July-August 1941, LW units were demoralised by their losses, they have never met such opposition before. It's what they said, not "soviet propaganda". "

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Germans actually lost about the same amount of planes to British Guns in 1940, as they did to Russians in 1944.
In 1944, the LW loss rate was 2000 on the Eastern front, 8000 on the western.
(Those 8000 would have made quite a difference on the Eastern front)

Closing up in Tunisia, the Brits&Yanks  captured a quarter of million troops. That equals the WW2 losses of the British armed forces being captured in a single campaign. The Russians have nothing to compare that with in relative numbers.

The Generals of the Germans in the Tunisian war were Rommel and Von Arnim. The Pilots of the LW were their finest, and there were troops being moved FROM the eastern front to the desert, in the times of Stalingrad and Kursk.
Had the western allies given away the African campaign, as well as the Bombing campaign, the German strength on the eastern front would have been been double and triple, that's what I am saying. And your red army could not have coped with that.
Corpse multiplier 3...how's that?

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Angus
Wotan, I disagree with you. I think there is No way the Russians could have won against the Germans, had the Germans not been hampered by the Western Allies.
Note that at the Battles of Stalingrad and then Kursk, won by the Russians by a MARGIN, the Germans suffered in the exact time,  a crushing defeat in Tunisia (300.000 dead and captured), and Kursk corresponds with the Allied landings at Sicily (Bigger amphibious landings than Normandy).
In the biggest advances on the Eastern front in 1944, the Germans are being routed in France, and their transport is in shambles.

The engagements on the eastern front were truly big, however, not really bigger if you add together air warfare, naval warfare and the multiple fronts of the western allies.

The russians who fell were many more than the westerners, true is that. However wars are not won with ones own corpses. Remember Zhukovs words, "when my men enter a minefield, they move across it as if it was not there"
How many Germans fell on the Eastern front compared to all other fronts?

This is just getting silly. At Stalingrad there was no "margin" 6th army was routed. Search Operation Uranus if you want a lesson.

Do you know number combat sorties flown on the Eastern Front by the LW? Over 350000 compared to about half that in the west.

The Soviets had their defenses in depth at Kursk. Regardless of what happened is Sicily Kursk would have failed. In fact with the exception of the fighting near Prokhorovka the offensive was over before it began.

Bagration was launched on June 22.. It was the largest offensive the world had seen. Army Group Center was destroyed. Army Group North was encircled in Kurland. All this while the western Allies made multiple attempts to break out at Normandy.  Even when comparing the scope and scale of Operation Cobra (break out of Normandy) you can not compare it to the size and success of Bagration.



Then came Berlin. And if that is not enough following that the Soviets switched directions moving a force and equipment larger then the force required to take Berlin across the Soviet union and mounted an offensive which destroyed the Japanese  Kwangtung in days. It was the largest offensive of the Pacific war. Do you even know why the Japanese invaded Manchuria? Do understand the importance that Manchuria had in relation to the Japanese war industry?

Its just silly the lack historical knowledge some you of have especially when arguing points on History.

Angus don’t embarrass yourself further. You are wrong on many things in the A & V forum. Take a break and go to your local library and spend some time reading up on a subject before you attempt to comment on them.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by anonymous
boroda i have been told that kruschev denounced some of things stalin did. you were in soviet military what was attitude of stalin purge of soviet military before second world war?

I didn't serve, I am the first male in my family in 3 generations who isn't an officer. I had military training in college, they prepared us as reserve SAM officers. And my civilian speciality was weapon engineering

My Grand Father (Father's Father) was an Imperial cavalry officer in WWI. In 1918 he was hired by Red Army as a "military specialist" according to Trotsky's decree about mobilisation of Czar's officers. During Civil War he earned an order of Red Banner (number 123;)), and by 1932 he was in a rank of combrig (brigade commander, something between colonel and general-major). In 1932 he was arrested as a "member of a Czarist officer coup" and spent two years in BAM-Lag. He was released but got back only a rank of major, and served as a horse-breeding factory commander. He was lucky that he was "purged" before 1937...

The problem with "purges" was that most of the repressed officers were old-school cavalerists and even partisans from Civil war. Even my Father who was touched personally by this "purges" admits to some extent that it could help rebuilding Red Army...

Semi-official point of view is that "purges" were organised by Germans who gave Stalin some fake evidence about military coups and cooperation with nazis. Anyway, people like marshall Bluher were absolutely uncapable to command in modern war. (Bluher was arrested after a failure in a conflict with Japan on lake Hasan).

Originally posted by anonymous
what if anything did guys you serve with know and think about it?

Sorry, I can't understand again English is a foreign language for me and I am drinking beer after work now...

[B17Skull12]

Boroda here let me make it a little less complex for ya.

What did the guys you serve with think about it?

[Angus]

Wotan, you may need to read up on the desert war as well as looking at a map to understand a tad better.

The Germans got routed at Stalingrad....eventually. Do you think they would have been if their inital strength had been double? If the LW had been Twice as strong? If their supply lines and supply quantity had been double?

Look at the massive death and damage the red army and air force suffered from a force using roughly half it strength, the rest being scattered all over the place, from Norway to Africa.
 
Double combat sorties on the eastern front, no wonder, 2/3rd of the LW was there (rough number, cough)
However, quadruple losses on the western front.

What you're saying as far as I understand is that the Red army could have won WW2 on its own. Well, I still disagree.

As a rest, sheer manpower is also not enough to win a war.