Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Reelya]

I read in the local news here that there seem to be bullet holes in part of the fuselage. I thought that sounded incongruous with the missile theory.

[mainiac]

By 1943 Soviet forces outnumbered Germans on the Eastern front by 2:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29

By 1943 more then half of new German material was fighting the west not the east.  The manpower was clearly more on the east, materials clearly more on the west.  It's a complicated picture and both the exaggerations of German abilities and exaggeration of Soviet potential to put armies in the field are misleading.

[Reelya]

By 1943 Soviet forces outnumbered Germans on the Eastern front by 2:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29

By 1943 more then half of new German material was fighting the west not the east.  The manpower was clearly more on the east, materials clearly more on the west.  It's a complicated picture and both the exaggerations of German abilities and exaggeration of Soviet potential to put armies in the field are misleading.

Well the question asked was whether or not the Soviets would have won without "western allied support" which we can take as a specific question about direct material aid. Whether or not the NAZIs would have won if they were only fighting on one front, as opposed to two, is an entirely different question.

You could make the same argument that D-Day would have been a massive failure if the NAZIs never invaded USSR. But we don't hear people crediting the USSR for their part in assuring D-Day went off well.

[Sheb]

I'm away for a few weeks, please don't kill the thread.

[smjjames]

I read in the local news here that there seem to be bullet holes in part of the fuselage. I thought that sounded incongruous with the missile theory.

Small pieces of shrapnel could make bullethole-like holes. There's also the possibility the rebels shot some bullet holes into the wreckage to confuse the investigators.

I'm sure the ballistics experts will be able to tell the difference.

Besides, I really doubt the bullets would even reach the plane if shot from the ground.

[Guardian G.I.]

Meanwhile

Pentagon says heavy caliber, multiple launch rockets from Russia to Ukrainian separatists is imminent, "potentially today"

When will this sad comedy end? When one of the sides will declare an official war?

In theory, if people in the upper echelons of power in the United States and NATO are absolutely sure that the Russian military is so inferior that it wouldn't put much of a fight, then America can probably start a Bosnia-style bombing campaign against Russian military forces on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine.
I've been told numerous times in this thread by Owlbread and other people that NATO has absolutely no intent to attack Russia, never had one and will never have it. However, the perceivable intent of NATO and their true actions can differ.
In the 1990s Belarus reportedly offered to send several S-300 SAM systems to Serbia to defend the country against possible attack by NATO. Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic refused the offer because he believed that NATO would never attack a sovereign European country like Serbia. Then, this happened.

[GreatJustice]

Presumably if the US didn't get involved in WW2 for whatever reason the Soviets would have ended up taking pretty much all of Europe, if at a much greater cost.

While the Soviet manpower contribution to WWII was greater, half the tanks and heavy guns and 80% of the planes were pointed west.  I'd hardly say Soviet victory was certain when the Germans had more population in non-occupied areas and industrial production.

Certainly the Soviets would have a harder time fighting the Germans alone (and I'm going to assume Britain is out of the war by 1942/43), but the Soviets had a lot of really significant advantages. For one thing, funny enough, Soviet industrial production of all war equipment (barring ships) was superior to that of the Germans for every year of the war, including 1942, when the Soviet heartland was under occupation. The German system of production, meanwhile, was very inefficient, with a wide variety of weapons being produced in small numbers rather than a few weapons being produced en masse. Further, the German equipment was tricky to repair due to far less standardization, whereas the Soviets had very standardized equipment that was very straightforward to repair when necessary, so logistical problems meant that the German tank force on paper looked quite a bit stronger than it actually was. Further, even taking into account the arrival of new troops and equipment from the African front, the Red Army significantly outnumbered the Germans in raw manpower. The Germans initially had a qualitatively superior force, but standardization of Soviet military equipment and procedures that had begun before the war began to settle as of 1942-43, after which point the Red Army was more or less capable of fighting the Wehrmacht on even terms, which was demonstrated by the 1943-45 operations by the Red Army in which the Wehrmacht's eastern army groups were largely annihilated (Operation Bagration being the prime example). Even with the resources of the Western front at their disposal, the Germans would have ultimately been overwhelmed and destroyed, leaving the way open for a Soviet occupation of Europe.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

In theory, if people in the upper echelons of power in the United States and NATO are absolutely sure that the Russian military is so inferior that it wouldn't put much of a fight, then America can probably start a Bosnia-style bombing campaign against Russian military forces on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine.
I've been told numerous times in this thread by Owlbread and other people that NATO has absolutely no intent to attack Russia, never had one and will never have it. However, the perceivable intent of NATO and their true actions can differ.
In the 1990s Belarus reportedly offered to send several S-300 SAM systems to Serbia to defend the country against possible attack by NATO. Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic refused the offer because he believed that NATO would never attack a sovereign European country like Serbia. Then, this happened.

You've truly absorbed too much propaganda.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I read in the local news here that there seem to be bullet holes in part of the fuselage. I thought that sounded incongruous with the missile theory.

Just from this forum, I've seen a lot of disturbing journalism practices emanating from 'local russian news'.
Any of the original posters around know of a few good links for this?

Meanwhile,

Russia is playing a dangerous game with conspiracy theories. Very dangerous.

They keep forgetting the rebels tweeted about downing a 'transport' plane.

By 1943 Soviet forces outnumbered Germans on the Eastern front by 2:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29

By 1943 more then half of new German material was fighting the west not the east.  The manpower was clearly more on the east, materials clearly more on the west.  It's a complicated picture and both the exaggerations of German abilities and exaggeration of Soviet potential to put armies in the field are misleading.

Well the question asked was whether or not the Soviets would have won without "western allied support" which we can take as a specific question about direct material aid. Whether or not the NAZIs would have won if they were only fighting on one front, as opposed to two, is an entirely different question.

You could make the same argument that D-Day would have been a massive failure if the NAZIs never invaded USSR. But we don't hear people crediting the USSR for their part in assuring D-Day went off well.

That's because
1. The Nazis declared war on Russia, (so Russia wasn't to thank for getting the Nazis entangled)
2. The Nazis declared war on Russia before D-day was ever planned, (so the benefit of split enemy forces was more a preexisting circumstance than an intended boon for the west)

Meanwhile, aid to Russia and the 're-'opening of the western front greatly revitalized the Russian forces & relieved the strain on the eastern front.

What I've heard of Stalingrad mostly centers around how much of a pigheaded blunder it was for Hitler, not the military genius and industrial might of the Russians. Is this flawed?

I'm away for a few weeks, please don't kill the thread.

We promise nothing.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

PARTY!

RIOT!

[mainiac]

You could make the same argument that D-Day would have been a massive failure if the NAZIs never invaded USSR. But we don't hear people crediting the USSR for their part in assuring D-Day went off well.

I was responding to the statement that absent US entry in the war, the USSR would have dominated Europe.

[Guardian G.I.]

In theory, if people in the upper echelons of power in the United States and NATO are absolutely sure that the Russian military is so inferior that it wouldn't put much of a fight, then America can probably start a Bosnia-style bombing campaign against Russian military forces on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine.
I've been told numerous times in this thread by Owlbread and other people that NATO has absolutely no intent to attack Russia, never had one and will never have it. However, the perceivable intent of NATO and their true actions can differ.
In the 1990s Belarus reportedly offered to send several S-300 SAM systems to Serbia to defend the country against possible attack by NATO. Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic refused the offer because he believed that NATO would never attack a sovereign European country like Serbia. Then, this happened.

You've truly absorbed too much propaganda.

Judging by your overtly emotional anti-Russian posts here, I have probably absorbed as much propaganda as you, Kamerad.

EDIT: also, here's the original Serbian report about Belarusian S-300s and Milosevic: http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/9/Politika/1619791/Luka%C5%A1enko+nudio+rakete+S-300+Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87u.html

[mainiac]

Certainly the Soviets would have a harder time fighting the Germans alone (and I'm going to assume Britain is out of the war by 1942/43), but the Soviets had a lot of really significant advantages. For one thing, funny enough, Soviet industrial production of all war equipment (barring ships) was superior to that of the Germans for every year of the war, including 1942, when the Soviet heartland was under occupation. The German system of production, meanwhile, was very inefficient, with a wide variety of weapons being produced in small numbers rather than a few weapons being produced en masse

The Soviets were able to focus their production on different items then the Germans did.  The Soviets fighter air force was woefully inadequate to the German one but the Soviets fought with air superiority.  The Soviets could focus on building tanks because they didn't need to build any trucks and trains.  The Soviets could have 2 or 3 times the indirect fire heavy artillery because they didn't need to defend against a massive strategic bombing campaign.

I will readily grant you that German tank production was horribly mismanaged but beyond that there aren't many obvious deficiencies in German production.  You just need to realize that Germany and Russia needed different kinds of production.  Rifles would be a pretty good example, the Soviets massively outproduced the Germans in rifles but it's not like the Germans were ever suffering from a shortage of those at the front (until the very end).  Why?  Well the German rifle stocks weren't overrun and destroyed in '41 and '42 so they didn't need new ones.

[GreatJustice]

Certainly the Soviets would have a harder time fighting the Germans alone (and I'm going to assume Britain is out of the war by 1942/43), but the Soviets had a lot of really significant advantages. For one thing, funny enough, Soviet industrial production of all war equipment (barring ships) was superior to that of the Germans for every year of the war, including 1942, when the Soviet heartland was under occupation. The German system of production, meanwhile, was very inefficient, with a wide variety of weapons being produced in small numbers rather than a few weapons being produced en masse

The Soviets were able to focus their production on different items then the Germans did.  The Soviets fighter air force was woefully inadequate to the German one but the Soviets fought with air superiority.  The Soviets could focus on building tanks because they didn't need to build any trucks and trains.  The Soviets could have 2 or 3 times the indirect fire heavy artillery because they didn't need to defend against a massive strategic bombing campaign.

I will readily grant you that German tank production was horribly mismanaged but beyond that there aren't many obvious deficiencies in German production.  You just need to realize that Germany and Russia needed different kinds of production.  Rifles would be a pretty good example, the Soviets massively outproduced the Germans in rifles but it's not like the Germans were ever suffering from a shortage of those at the front (until the very end).  Why?  Well the German rifle stocks weren't overrun and destroyed in '41 and '42 so they didn't need new ones.

Soviet production was certainly focused on different areas thanks to Lend Lease and the strategic bombing of Germany, yet both of these factors are overblown considering the fact that the Soviets still outproduced the Germans in nearly every aspect from 1940 to 1942, while Lend Lease and serious strategic bombing only had significant effects by around 1944.

To go into a bit more detail with regards to Lend Lease, the Soviets mainly received three main things from the Americans: locomotives, food, and jeeps/trucks. Locomotives are often brought up as a major contribution, but they actually were largely unnecessary; as a result of the German advance, most of the extended Soviet rail lines were occupied, yet most of the locomotives the Soviets had before the war were safely evacuated along with other industrial materials. So the Soviets were sitting on a pile of trains that they couldn't use, in amounts that dwarfed what the Americans sent over, and by the time the American locomotives were at all useful the Germans were basically beaten anyway. Food was useful, but the food supplied was insufficient to feed the Red Army for even a few months, and thus was a minor benefit at best. The arrival of jeeps and trucks was the most helpful part of Lend Lease, but they almost all arrived after 1944, so that doesn't explain the superiority of Soviet production before that time.

Anyhow, in terms of the air war, the Soviets still outproduced the Germans, with their main problems being (A) inferior plane designs and (B) a lack of experienced pilots. The first problem was largely solved after 1943 when the Yak-9 and Yak-3 became the common Soviet fighter planes, while the second became less of an issue over the course of the war as Soviet pilots became more experienced. By the end of the war, Soviet fighters were generally superior to those fielded by the Luftwaffe, so even the air war would be won by the Soviets.

[Sergarr]

I'm still amazed by the fact how fast the entire production lines were evacuated. And how fast they started to work on the new place. It's an amazingly difficult logistical challenge, especially in early days of war conditions, with massive Soviet retreat and all.

[10ebbor10]

There are many things to be said about communism, but it's a rather effective system if you can correctly predict demand. (Which you know, is easier in war time)