Re: russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: Re: 50% of NAZI oil..]

"Ivan Grozny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "ZZBunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Nicholas Smid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > "Stuart Wilkes' mom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > I always said Stuey would never amount to anything.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Drazen Kramaric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > >  message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > On 23 Oct 2003 03:20:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Wilkes)
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> What were the numbers of soldiers involved in the two campaigns
> that
> > > > > >> you are comparing. i.e:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Suprisingly equal, Rostyk.  I'm suprised you didn't know that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Post the numbers, then.
> > > > > >
> > > Rawest numbers for jan 1939
> > > Germany 1,500,000 troops
> > > Holland          60,000
> > > Belgium         80,000
> > > France         700,000
> > > Britain          154,000
> > > total              994,000
> > >
> > > in divisions the Germans had 136 against 136
> > > To keep some navy in this well the German navy at the time might be
able
> to
> > > beat Hollands but it was totaly out classed by both major powers
> > > In aircaft it was about 4500 against about 5900, though the Germans
did
> have
> > > a lower proportion of obsaleat types.
> >
> >   The Germans didn't need much of a Navy in WWII,
> >   since they were attacking North Africa, the
> >   Middle East, France, and Russia, not the US.
>
> Where is pathetic loser Stuart Wilkes when you need him?
> So they weren't attacking the US? German submarines routinely sank US
ships
> in US coastal waters, especially early on. They also routinely sank US
> merchant marine vessels in international waters. Doenitz pleaded with
Hitler
> for more ships and subs. If Germany didn't need a navy, why was Doenitz
> asking for them?

Yes... Operation Drumbeat, off the US Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of
Mexico, caught the US quite hard early on in 1942. Also, it took time for
the US to get the convoy doctrine and patrol aircraft up and running. And to
get the lights turned off in the coastal towns at night....

> >   And especially since they were fighting
> >   with tanks, rockets, and missles,
> >   and the rest of Europe was fighting with horses and cannons.
>
> Wrong. Germany used horses throughout the war like all the other
continental
> European countries. The US used motorized vehicles almost exclusively. The
> V-1 and V-2 had no strategic impact.

Right again. People tend to forget that while the Whermacht used motorized
forces for blitzkrieg style attacks and front line action, the supply chain
of the German Armed forces relied very heavily on horse drawn wagons and
such, in terms of supply chain. Especially in the Eastern Front, where
trucks bogged down in mud bad, (though carts were also troubled.) Besides,
when one is short on diesel fuel and gasoline, finding food for a horse can
be easier. Up to the end of the war, the Germans used horses. As for the V-1
and V-2, yes, they were terror weapons. But by the time they came out,
German cities were taking far more damage from Allied air raids than their
V-weapons could inflict on the Allies. Also, disinformation, antiaircraft
guns and bulked up fighter defenses helped protect London against V-1
attacks after a while. One of the Western Allies' greatest contributions to
the war was the bombing campaign.

> >   And since it was the invasions of
> >   Sicily, Normany, and Norway that saved
> >   Russia's ass from certain anniolation, you're
> >   missing several other armies in
> >   the analysis.

The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk occured before June of 1944, I believe.
Also, the Germans had forces tied down by the Allied invasion of Italy. It
was the D-Day attack that opened the way in the west, however. Kesselring
and the Apennine mountains were quite nasty delaying forces in Italy.

Though the allies did tie down German and Axis forces there. Hitler's war on
many fronts was a grand mistake. Not to mention the garrison requirements of
the countries he had already taken. From France and the Low Countries in the
west to Yugoslavia and Greece in the east.

This by no means takes anything from the bravery of the Russian people and
soldiers that fought, however. From the gates of Moscow to Leningrad to the
Reichschanchellery in Berlin, they did a ton of damage, and took a lot, too.
Not to mention the footage I have seen of people setting up factories and
working hot steel in buildings with no roofs on yet and snow coming down.
There aren't words for that kind of bravery.

> > > > > >> Size of armies in the west and the casualties?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Well, the French Army alone suffered 1.9 million KIA and
prisoners
> in
> > > > > >the campaign in the West, while the combined
> > > > > >Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies inflicted ~27,000 KIA on the
> > > > > >Germans.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your numbers are correct, but do not tell the whole story. France
> > > > > surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue
> the
> > > > > war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps. Had you
> > > > > included only POWs captured prior to cease fire the numbers would
be
> > >
> > > The Vichy government maintained a large army untill the end of 42, at
> which
> > > point alot of it went over to the allies. Also alot of units,
especully
> > > reserve units, disbanded themselves late in the campain and went home
> where
> > > they were left as civies.
> > >
> > > > > more correct, but would represent argument against your thesis,
that
> > > > > Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically
> possible.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >In this case, the Germans faced unprepared unalerted,
> > >  peacetime-strength
> > > > > >Rifle Divisions (~6000 men) far from their assigned battle
> positions,
> > >  which is one of the
> > > > > >advantages you get when you do a sneak attack.
> > > > >
> > > Except the only person the attack was a surprise to was the boss, due
to
> > > willful self deseption and a willingness to shoot anyone who dared to
> tell
> > > him the truth, it dose speck volumes for the courage of many in the
Red
> army
> > > that they went on trying however. The trouble was that a large chunk
of
> the
> > > Red army was in its battle possitions, the possitions were just
insainly
> > > chosin. being in the middle of a major re equipment cycle and doctran
> change
> > > didn't help much ether.
> > >
> > > > > You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared
out
> of
> > > > > nowehere next to the Soviet border. The primary person responsible
> for
> > > > > Red Army been caught napping is the man you feel was justified in
> > > > > invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland under the
> > > > > pretext of "security in case of German attack".
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you address that fact for a change?
> > > > >
> > > Moving the boarder west probably saved Russia in 41, if preperations
had
> > > been made with any degree of compatence they should have done far
> better.
> > > The failiers rest 110% with the guy at the top and his cronies, though
> > > atleast he had the ability once the war started to learn from his
errors
> if
> > > not as fast as might be desired. Atleast he was smart enough to
> recognise
> > > talent and from the middle of 42 mostly listen to people who knew what
> they
> > > were talking about.
> > > > >
> > > > > Drax
> > > >
> > > >
>
>