Author Topic: so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)  (Read 6713 times)

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #135 on: August 04, 2004, 12:44:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by demaw1
WOTAN.........America like any other country has had its share of traitors


Having spent 6 years on a fast attack submarine with access to some of the "most secret" secrets it's comical to be called a "traitor" by some one like you.

Get back to your "history channel" education.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #136 on: August 04, 2004, 12:55:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rino
Ok..tell me when did the soviets hit strategic targets in Germany then hero?  Also the Japanese were reluctant to engage or even threaten Russia due to the war with the US.  Those Siberian troops that counterattacked at Stalingrad were freed up by the lack of threat from the SE.

     Stop acting like you're the only one who's ever read a book.


Strategic targets were over rated:

THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY



Quote
Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, makes the following statement about the effectiveness of British and American bombing of the Third Reich: "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies."

On the surface, Speer's analysis tells us that the Allied strategic bombing campaign had a decisive impact on the German war effort in 1944. Based on figures found in Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," the Germans produced in 1944: 17,800 tanks, 39,807 aircraft. So that, on the basis of Speer's statement, they aimed to produce 24,030 tanks and 52,147 aircraft. For comparison, Allied production of tanks and aircraft in 1944 resulted in 51,500 tanks (USSR: 29,000; UK: 5,000; USA: 17,500) and 163,079 aircraft (USSR: 40,300; UK 26,461; USA: 96,318). Therefore, even with the additional production that would have resulted from no bombing at all, the Allies still produce twice as many tanks and more than three times the number of aircraft as the Third Reich.

Such figures do not support Overy's conclusion that bombing Germany had "fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies." In terms of the kind of war of attrition fought in 1944 the additional German production would not have made a decisive difference. Allied production for 1944 is clearly overwhelming. Looking at the military situation on the ground in 1944 is even more telling of how the war is going.

Overy goes on to say: "The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat." At least, an ever-increasing number of Luftwaffe units were devoted to the air defense of the Reich as the war progressed. And, new aircraft production shifted towards fighters and away from bombers. The question remains as to whether this impact of the Allied bombing campaign was decisive to the outcome of the war or had just a marginal effect on it.

Furthermore, the converse of Overy's remark was also true. The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign. That honor must go to the land campaigns fought by the allies. So, could the resources devoted to the bomber force been more effectively employed elsewhere?

Perhaps the greatest oversight in an analysis that focuses on the latter part of the war is that the crucial period to consider is from 1941 to 1943. It is in this period that German power is substantial and the possibility of a German military victory exists. How effective was the Allied bomber campaign during this period? According to a table found in the Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945). Considering that Germany dropped about 37,000 tons on the UK in 1940, another 22,000 tons in 1941, with a few thousand tons every year thereafter with marginal results, there is little reason to believe that the scale of Allied bombing between 1940 and 1943 was substantial enough to alter the military balance in 1941 or 1942 either. Yet those are critical years to consider because that was when Soviet survival hung in the balance and British possessions in the Middle East were threatened by conquest.


Quote
Order of Battle - Operation Uranus (18-19 November 1942)
   
Red Army South-West front    

Representatives of the Stavka

Army General G.K.Zhukov.
Colonel-General of Artillery N.N. Voronov.
Colonel-General A.M. Vasilevsky.

South-Westfront
General N.F. Vatutin.

21th Army.
General I.M. Chistyakov.

Rifle Divisions :
  63rd
  76th
  96th
277th
293rd
333rd
Tank Regiments :
1st
2nd
4th Guards

4th Tank Corps : A.G. Kravchenko.
3rd Guards Cavalry Corps : P.A. Pliev.

5th Tank Army.
General P.L. Romanenko.

Rifle Divisions :
  14th Guards
  47th Guards
  50th Guards
119th
159th
346th

  1st Tank Corps : V.V Butkov.
26th Tank CCorps : A.G. Rodin.
  8th Cavalry Corps

1st Guards Army
General D.D Leyushenko.

Rifle Divisions :
    1st
153rd
197th
203rd
266th
278th

South-West front  - Reserve :
1st Guards Mechanised Corps

2nd Air Army

17th Air Army
Major General S.A. Krasovsky.
   Red Army Don front    

Representatives of the Stavka

Army General G.K.Zhukov.
Colonel-General of Artillery N.N. Voronov.
Colonel-General A.M. Vasilevsky.

Don Front
Colonel General K.K. Rokossovsky.

66th Army.
Major General A.S. Zhadov.

Rifle Divisions :
  64th
  99th
116th
226th
299th
343rd
Tank Brigade :
  58th

24th Army
General I.V. Galanin.

Rifle Divisions :
  49th
  84th
120th
173rd
233rd
260th
273rd
Tank Brigade :
  10th

  16th Tank Corps.

65th Army
Lieutenant General P.I. Batov.

Rifle Divisions :
   4th Guards
  27th Guards
  40th Guards
  23th
  24th
252nd
258th
304th
321th
Tank Brigade :
121st

16th Air Army
Major General S.I. Rudenko.
   Red Army Stalingrad ront    

Representatives of the Stavka

Army General G.K.Zhukov.
Colonel-General of Artillery N.N. Voronov.
Colonel-General A.M. Vasilevsky.

Stalingrad Front
Colonel-General A.I.Yeremenko.
N.S. Khrushchev.

62nd Army.
General V.I. Chuikov.

Rifle Divisions :
  13th Guards : A.I. Rodimtsev.
  37th Guards : V.G. Zholudev.
  39th Guards : S.S. Guriev.
  45th
  95th : V.A. Gorishny.
112th
138th : I.I. Lyudnikov.
193th : F.N.Smekhotvorov.
196th
244th
284th : N.F. Batyuk.
308th : L.N. Gurtiev.
  10th NKVD Rifle Division : Rogatin.
Marine Infantry Brigade :
  92nd
Special Brigades :
  42nd
115th
124th
149th
160th
Tank Brigades :
  84th
137th
189th

64th Army.
General M.S Shumilov.

Rifle Divisions :
36th Guards
29th
38th
157th
204th
Marine Infantry Brigade :
154th
Special Brigades :
66th
93rd
96th
97th
Tank Brigades :
13th
56th

57th Army.
General F.I. Tolbukhin.

Rifle Divisions :
169th
422nd
Special Brigade :
143rd
Tank Brigades :
  90th
235th

13th Mechanized Corps : T.I. Tanashchishin

51st Army.
General N.I. Trufanov.

Rifle Division :
15th Guards
Special Brigade :
38th
Tank Brigade :
254th

4th Mechanizes Corps : V.T. Volsky
4th Cavalry Corps : Shapkin

28th Army.
?

Rifle Divisions :
34th Guards
248th
Special Brigades :
 52nd
152nd
159th
Tank Brigade :
6th Guards

Stalingrad front - Reserve :
330th Rifle Division
 85th Tank Brigade

8th Air Army.
General T.T. Khryukin.


Which one of those are the "siberian counter attacking troops"?

As I said you are a product of the "History Channel".

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #137 on: August 04, 2004, 02:49:06 AM »
Soviet brigade = Regiment?

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #138 on: August 04, 2004, 05:33:46 AM »
1940. Summer.
The British accept a truce with Hitler. They keep their Homeland and their colonies.
1941. January. The Japanese decide that as a combined force, the US and British are too strong to deal with. There is but one old foe who might be looked at, - RUSSIA.
1941. Springtime. Hitler now has his FULL force ready to move, befor Stalin does. That includes most of the Kriegsmarine moving in from the North, and all forces that otherwise would have been in N-Africa and on the Western front. The LW's strength is double.
1941 MAY. Hitler invades Russia. He is at the gates of Moscow in August. Japan grabs the opportunity and moves in from the east.
1941 October. All Major Russian cities have fallen. The remaining Russian forces are scattered and without support. Hitler stops moving and prepares to dig in for the winter.
1942 October. The Red army has been crushed and almost all Russian industry is in German Hands. The Japanese keep sweeping up large areas on the eastern sides of the former USSR.

At least that's how it may have went. Imagine that the force that hit the USSR had initially been twice as strong, then four times. No chance....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #139 on: August 04, 2004, 07:06:54 AM »
thanks wotan. makes sense to me you sound like submariner "smart guy". :)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #140 on: August 04, 2004, 08:57:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by -tronski-
Soviet brigade = Regiment?
 


Brigade = "brigada", a unit of several batallions or regiments. Something between regiment and division.

http://encycl.yandex.ru/cgi-bin/art.pl?art=bse/00010/27400.htm&encpage=bse&mrkp=/yandbtm7%3Fq%3D1148946878%26p%3D0%26g%3D0%26d%3D3%26ag%3Denc_abc%26tg%3D1%26p0%3D0%26q0%3D402606944%26d0%3D0%26script%3D/yandpage%253F

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #141 on: August 04, 2004, 09:31:54 AM »
So, like an english Brigade, yes?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #142 on: August 04, 2004, 10:05:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
So, like an english Brigade, yes?


Probably. There was a big difference in unit names between countries. For example: in Crimean War 1854-55 British division was equal to Russian regiment.

Brigade usually means a separate unit used to "strengthen" troops, like heavy artillery or tank brigade. Also some units are called "brigades" like S-200 SAM complex: it contains of several "divizion" (artillery term equal to "batallion"): 3 fire divizions, technical and radiotechnical divizions plus some other units.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #143 on: August 04, 2004, 10:39:34 AM »
Ty Boroda.
Can't remember how many Battalions it needed to form a Brigade. 4 maybe?
Then you have X many Brigades forming a division.

The Brits at least had this rather fixed in WW2.

Maybe the same system?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline demaw1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 652
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #144 on: August 04, 2004, 03:02:18 PM »
Wotan.......attack subs....

    There was only the normal name calling on this thread, until you and skull started writing. The first thing I gleaned about you, was the fact you were well educated, and most likely had access to more areas of information than anyone in here.... there might be one exception.

    The other thing was, you were a pompass ass, full of your self,and quite elitist in nature. Hence the name calling and put downs that permeated your post. I admit ,after last night ,I can no longer say ..I never do that..

   Both Octavius and Anonymous addressed me,and I accept their criticism,I will soon address both of them,and try to explain my reasons for my actions.

   I wonder what difference it makes to anything, that you had access, to most secret documents,or were on an attack sub.[ if you were]
   There are many I could use to make my point,  I have chosen two. Did not Benedict Arnold have access to secret documents? Wasnt Jimmy Carter in subs/ or had something to do with them.?One was a  traitor ,  the other hates America and loves the idea of a one world gov. I admit my error and believe you are either a communist,in which case you are much more dangerous than broda,or you are a carter clone.

   My cousin retired from the Army a full colonal, he was in army intell. stationed in germany. I have a friend, retired engineer ,around 86, has done some side work for me. He was a major or lt colonal in 1936 assigned to the general staff in poland.That is why I was on this post ,to help bikekil try to get over his anger.[ My friend still has the blue numbers on his wrist.] I believe common sense will reveal the reason I mentioned this.
   
  Here is a list of your statements I found to be very telling.

  1. Winter didnt defeat germany, thats western arrogance.

  2.America didnt save the soviet union, the soviets would have defeated hitler with out America.

  3.Britian and france after ww1 screwed up the world
 
  4.The failure of a soviet, g.b./france alliance wasnt a result of what the soviets wanted, but because of what little england and france offered in returned.

  5.the soviets wanted very much an alliance with g/b and france.

  6. several times:...its the American idiot

  7. its American propoganda.

 8 America needs to thank the soviet union for berlin...

  9. you just parrot American nonsense.

  this is enough but there is more....

   Yes, Woton very shrewd writing...nice nuances...education, I am not even in your league...I was only able to evaluate your writing a very tiny bit , because, one day,a long time ago, for fun,
 my cousin showed me a little bit of what to look for.

   Now I shall just evanesce.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #145 on: August 04, 2004, 04:02:08 PM »
You can't even spell my nic correctly let alone put together a readable response.

I left the door wide open for you to offer proof of your statements. I did so without providing information that would prejudice your reply.

Prove your point.

Can you provide a by year break down of "lend lease equipment" sent to the Soviets?

If you could and you were honest you would see that during those crucial years where the Wehrmacht had a realistic possibility of achieving their pre- Barbarossa goals (do you even know what those were?) lend lease was insignificant and the Soviets on their own not only were able to stem the tide but were in the process of full reversal.

There's no question that the world worked together to defeat Hitler but that doesn't change the facts that the Soviets carried the majority of the burden. In fact even without the rest of the world the odds were well in the Soviets favor for full victory. The war would have dragged on longer of course.

70% of Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front. The majority of German war graves aren't in France but across the Russian Steppes. You are an idiot if you fall to comprehend the epic struggle that was taking place, not in Normandy or the skies over Berlin but on the Steppes.

When you make an outrageous claim its up to you to offer sources.

I don't believe most of your biography. A quick review of your replies in this thread works against your claim.

Calling some one a "traitor" because they don’t agree with your scanted view of History is comical at best. At its worst it shows your true character. I stand by my opinion that you are in fact an idiot.

My "source" for such a claim is revealed within your replies.

Look at Rino's last post

Quote
Also the Japanese were reluctant to engage or even threaten Russia due to the war with the US.


He has no knowledge in history when he makes such stupid statements.

On 13 April 1941 the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact was signed. This followed the defeat of the Japanese in August 1939. The Japanese were routed by a Soviet style "blitzkrieg" which pre-dated the German "blitzkrieg". After the battle the Soviets shifted their forces west to aid in their own invasion of Poland, Baltics etc. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was announced on 23 August 1939. This, along with their defeat, helped inspire the Japanese to make peace with the Soviets. Japan was an ally of Germany and Germany was an "ally" of the Soviets. From here until '45 no state of war existed between Japan and the Soviets.

Japan didn’t want to engage the Soviets because they got their arses kicked and the Soviets weren't threatening them. The Soviets had their hands full in the west. Outer Mongolia and Siberia had no real military value to the Japanese.

Once the Soviets agreed to war with Japan in ‘45 their response was a larger military campaign then what they put up against Berlin. They routed the Japanese along a huge front in Manchuria, invade the Kurile Islands etc.  

 If you doubt this do your own research on the scale of the Soviet assault in Manchuria.

Regardless of the specifics I stated above these types of claims made by folks like Rino and yourself have no reality in historical fact.

If pointing that out makes me a "traitor" then so what. I was never on "your side" anyway.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2004, 04:20:40 PM by Wotan »

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #146 on: August 04, 2004, 04:36:03 PM »
I forgot one thing, as for being called a "communist" I find that more comical then being called a “traitor”.

A Russian-Jewish immigrant on this thread  called me a Nazi.

In threads where I spoke out against the Ami “nuke all the *******s” reaction to 9/11 I was called another thing and yet another when I was willing to give GWB the benefit of doubt with his reasoning behind invading Iraq.

One thing is clear from your replies in this thread is that once you realize can’t win on facts and you will reach for anything to lash out. I may have called you an idiot but the facts back that up.

Offline wklink

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
      • http://www.simhq.com
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #147 on: August 04, 2004, 04:39:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Probably. There was a big difference in unit names between countries. For example: in Crimean War 1854-55 British division was equal to Russian regiment.

Brigade usually means a separate unit used to "strengthen" troops, like heavy artillery or tank brigade. Also some units are called "brigades" like S-200 SAM complex: it contains of several "divizion" (artillery term equal to "batallion"): 3 fire divizions, technical and radiotechnical divizions plus some other units.


In the US the word Brigade and Regiment often are used interdepdently.  The old Warsaw pact doctrine had Regiments (Motorized Rifle, Mech Rifle, Tank, etc.) but you are right, they aren't the same as the US Regiments.  The 1st ACR of the US has much more organic support than a similar Soviet Armored Regiment.  Brigades weren't used all that much with the older Soviet divisions (they had them, but they went with Regiments more).

From what I understand this is changing and the old Regimental system is evolving into smaller brigade size units.  Like the United States, I understand the concept of large division size elements is becoming passe.  Smaller units are easier to move and deploy.
The artist formerly known as Tom 'Wklink' Cofield

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #148 on: August 04, 2004, 04:40:27 PM »
wotan what was closest germans ever came to defeat russia in second world war? consider me a student. demaw1 lighten up you seem alright think of it like this country loses twenty million people you dont ask them thanks for trucks they paid with lives of their soldiers and people.

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)
« Reply #149 on: August 04, 2004, 05:18:39 PM »
Australian WW2 Brigades were made of 3 infantry battalions (plus the usual assorted additional HQ/supply/machingun etc companies) roughly the equivilant of a regiment, with 3 brigades making an Australian division.

I agree with Wotan's argument about the Russians carrying the lion share of the fighting and burden against the germans.
Commonsense (or even the history channel) would demonstrate the Luftwaffe, and Whermacht were bleed dry on the eastern front.
Most of the german divisions in the west before and immediately after D-Day were mostly complete rubbish, or 'elite' units in france to rest and refit after being smashed by the Russians.

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful