invade Russia at the end of ww2?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#61

[quote=“Hosenfield”][quote=“festamus”]

You say the figures for kursk don’t count in the “bocage” but then again you compare kursk with normandy without factual basis. You think german armor formations were always moving at kursk! Formations still need to be refueled, or halt to rest or change direction. The kurks battle was an insanely armor-rich condensed battleground for Soviet Sturmoviks.

I believe it is yourself who used the comparative figures from Kursk first - and the points stands that Normandy presented far more targets of a less mobile nature.

Your figure of 100 is disputed elsewhere as mentioned by others. This is being offered up as an explanation of how, despite inaccuracy of rockets and despite your comparative figure for Kursk, that 100 figure could be debatable.

#62

say 100 tanks destroyed, and 200 were damaged. That would be 1/6 of total tank causalties in the normandy campaign. Not an unreasonable number. I do not believe that the majority, as you claim, was destroyed by fighter bombers. How about the thousands of Shermans on the ground? High caliber naval gunfire that stopped 21st panzer from holding the beach? Naval gunfire that repulsed the 12th SS panzer division? German tanks notorious mechanical reliability? LAck of fuel? allied AT guns? etc.

#63

All good points, and a reminder than everyting has to be taken as a whole with all the various arms integrated into a common purpose. Air didnt do it alone, but the allies didnt have to watch the sky during every daylight hour, which made a huge impact.

#64

Never said the majority mate. Not once. I believe you are confusing me for BDL who said that at the end of the Ardennes offensive air power accounted for the majority of the armour that was still moving. Not a claim I made and not one I have to stand by but hey, I can see it as being plausible given the

But you did say the loss rates to aircraft were and I quote directly “very, very low” - something I disagree with strongly and, yes, here by your own admission you say 1/6th. That’s a significant proportion and indeed not very low at all. Works for me.

Point is, the loss rates of armor to aircraft is very,very low.

1/6th = 16.6%

4.74 times higher than the Kursk rate you provided. Which means your own numbers add significant weight to my argument that your use of the Kursk figure to reinforce your point is somewhat flawed. (For “somewhat” read: “very”)

Anyway, I think this one’s been done to death now anyway.

#65

ya…this arguement is going nowhere…now back to the discussion on an allied invasion of russia…

#66

well 1/6 including a 200 damaged guess. but damaged doesn’t mean destroyed, but pulled back from the front for heavy repairs.

the (permanent) losses to aircraft is 100, which is 5.6%

well, the( permanent) losses to aircraft in kursk was 3.5%.

sorry, but i rephrase my statement. Allied fighter-bombers destroyed low numbers of tanks but damaged a (unknown) greater number, effectively putting them out of the battle for some time.

#67

anyway, i still hold that a complete conquest of russia would probably be unsuccessful.

But anything could happen, and military blunders can occur, so who knows?

#68

well on paper this war looks like a win for the allies…although russia/soviet union has never been conquered, even when facing a superior force.

#69

well, mr.firefly’s statement was the complete conquest of russia, which i didn’t agree with.

#70

Try telling that to the Mongols, ever heard of the Golden Horde?

#71

uhhh…no never heard of them

#72

These were the Mongols. Their leader, Temujin, proclaimed himself supreme ruler of all Mongols in 1206 and assumed the title of Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan invaded China, captured Peking and then conquered an empire that reached from the Pacific to the Volga river, and under his successors nearly all Russia became tributary to the Mongols (or Tartars as the Russians called them) for over two hundred years.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/civil_n2/histscript5_n2/golden1.html

#73

yeah, when it comes to world domination per square mile, the mongols did it best. in fact, they would’ve gotten more land if his son didn’t die.

#74

To the Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde

#75

I always liked the Big Horde… I would have fitted in a treat there I reckon.

#76

yes i see…although i do not think ghangis kong would have much of an affect on an invasion of russia in the 1940’s :wink:

#77

You said Russia had never been conquered, I pointed out it had
:lol:

Some argue that it was the Mongols that invented the Blitzkrieg.

#78

Really? Do you have a source on that one, Firefly? I’d love to read it :smiley:

#79

Really? Do you have a source on that one, Firefly? I’d love to read it :D[/quote]

I cant remember the author but the book is called Reconnaisance in Force, its a cracking read about the Mongol incursion into Europe in the 13th century.

#80

Really? Do you have a source on that one, Firefly? I’d love to read it :D[/quote]

I cant remember the author but the book is called Reconnaisance in Force, its a cracking read about the Mongol incursion into Europe in the 13th century.[/quote]

Thanks, I’ll see what I can find. :smiley: