PDA

View Full Version : Revisionist WWII History, Selective Use of Statistics, and the BigFella



Paul Pless
03-06-2009, 07:57 AM
Hollywood strikes again......

WW2 was won by the Russians (and just to counter the inevitable response - only 10% of their materiel was provided by the US) and the Chinese - who between them took 10 million of our 11.4 million battle deaths. Between 1942 and 1944 the percentage of German troops in the western parts of Europe was as low as 12% of their total and it only reached 20% in 1944.

GM did not win the war.You know Ian, you throw this out here a lot, almost always acerbically in tone that the U.S. needs a reality check on its role in history. I'm not gonna argue that Russia and China didn't indeed play a huge role in the the ultimate victory over both Japan and Germany, however to say that the primary reason for the victory was their huge loss of military personel does ignore that superior military startegy, industrial might, as well as technical superiority contributed in a large meausre to the victories.

Regardless of how many Chinese were killed in battle in WWII it must be admitted that ultimately Japan was a naval power and their defeat was ensured by United States naval victories - and no less than that.

On to the war in Europe, surely you don't believe Russia would have been able to overrun Germany without the sustained strategic bombing campaign conducted from the West, done almostsolely with heavy American bombers, carrying bombs manufactured in America, flown by American air crews, and escorted by the dominate long range fighters of the day - also all American.




that should get it started...

Phillip Allen
03-06-2009, 08:03 AM
we believe what we want to and disregard the rest...

Popeye
03-06-2009, 08:13 AM
to say that the primary reason for the victory was their huge loss of military personel does ignore that superior military startegy, industrial might, as well as technical superiority contributed in a large meausre to the victories..

i'm going to give you 1 out of 3

brute force is all , no superior military strategy , far from it

Paul Pless
03-06-2009, 08:15 AM
please try not to use that word. duly corrected... sorry.

Nicholas Scheuer
03-06-2009, 08:20 AM
The substantialy equal match between British and American numbers are surprizing, but one small quible; wasn't most of the British long-range bombing done at night? Didn't the British perform this mission without long-range fighter escourt, for the most part?

I do not recall the RAF having a decent long-range figter aircraft. The Spitfire and Hurricane were definately short-range interceptor aircraft.

I personally met a former RAF night fighter who flew Northrop P-61 Black Widows, a large, twin engineo fighter/bomber equipped with radar so as yo be viable at night.

Moby Nick

Paul Pless
03-06-2009, 08:22 AM
Wikipedia does not seem to agree:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Ussb-1.svg/400px-Ussb-1.svg.png



apart from the engines, without which they would not have had the range. ;)Don't see any significant contributions from the Russians there. Take all those blue numbers away and what have you left?

Paul Pless
03-06-2009, 08:38 AM
The red numbers?Good point, and like Nicolas the equality in contribution is surprising to me.

Joe (SoCal)
03-06-2009, 08:44 AM
http://www.socaldims.com/The%20History%20Channel%20Logo.jpg

Yeaaaa the WBF very own Hitler .... ummm I mean History channel ... all war & guns all the time

Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn War & guns :(

Paul Pless
03-06-2009, 09:22 AM
Stupid argument full of minor quibbles. It was called World War 2 for a very good reason.

It's a classic example of how we all tend to remember the history that we were taught, and, when most of us were at school, that tended to be the history of "our lot".Excellent points both, and actual Milo's is the what I was attempting to infer, unfortunately I did a poor job of it before my coffee had kicked in this morning.

Popeye
03-06-2009, 09:37 AM
that's a nice blouse milo , did you make it yourself

Paul Pless
03-06-2009, 09:38 AM
One thing this venue will teach you (if you're willing to learn;)) is that there is little tolerance for anything but a well reasoned and well researched argument.:o

Ian McColgin
03-06-2009, 09:47 AM
It was a world war, but we Americans are sadly ignorant, especially of the Soviet reality. Had Hitler not suffered a severe case of victory disease, had he not attacked east and had he offered peace to Great Britian, it's possible he could have managed. Maybe.

But he never stood any realistic chance of surmounting the logistic problems of fighting the Soviets and he dreadfully underestimated General Winter. I think he'd have lost to the Soviets even if he'd not engaged the West. But that's a maybe as well.

What's not a maybe is that the US did not win the war by itself.

Popeye
03-06-2009, 09:49 AM
I have learned an awful ot (mostly about the USA and Canada ) by coming here.

me too :D , i picked up on the politics and the culture

Popeye
03-06-2009, 10:10 AM
I learned some really great Newfie jokes, but can't use them here due to certain sensitivities on the part of certain forumites.you might also refer to a certain amount of 'chinamen' sentiment .. also noted:rolleyes:

other than the species , what's the difference ?

Kaa
03-06-2009, 10:20 AM
On to the war in Europe, surely you don't believe Russia would have been able to overrun Germany without the sustained strategic bombing campaign conducted from the West, done almostsolely with heavy American bombers, carrying bombs manufactured in America, flown by American air crews, and escorted by the dominate long range fighters of the day - also all American.

I don't know about Ian, but I believe that.

The US' participation in WW2 was certainly helpful and just as certainly not decisive on the European front. Germany effectively lost the war when it failed to overrun Russia during the initial blitzkrieg. With the benefit of hindsight, of course, it was all over after Stalingrad and Kursk. There was still a need for lots of blood and time, but the outcome was clear.

On the Pacific front things were different, of course. Without the US, Russia and China would likely have been able to push Japan out of Asia mainland, but probably wouldn't have invaded Japan, at least for a while. Here the US role was decisive. But in Europe it was not.

Kaa

boatbuddha
03-06-2009, 10:45 AM
Without the second front in the West the Germans would have had a lot more to throw at the Russians. Without the allies bombing the heck out the German industrial heartland, they would have eventually built long range bombers and flattened the factories east of the Urals.

Kaa
03-06-2009, 10:53 AM
Without the second front in the West the Germans would have had a lot more to throw at the Russians. Without the allies bombing the heck out the German industrial heartland, they would have eventually built long range bombers and flattened the factories east of the Urals.

Nope. The Germans didn't win with a knockout punch when they had strategic surprise, morale, and technological edge on their side. Once the war became a slugging match... well, no one wins a slugging match with Russia :-) At this point size matters a lot more and the Russians recreated a lot of their industry on the war footing behind the Urals, blunted the Germans' technological edge, and were doing much better morale-wise. They had many more bodies and more iron to throw into the meatgrinder, along with the political willingness to do so.

Nah, by 1943 Germany was truly screwed, West front or no West front.

Kaa

PatCox
03-06-2009, 11:02 AM
I had a chance to fly in the Memphis Belle, they had it at an airshow and advertised 15 minute flights for $400, 4 passengers. $100 each. Noone would go with me.

martin schulz
03-06-2009, 11:05 AM
The funny part for me is when some of the US historians in this forum come up with:


without the US you would all be speaking German in Europe now

I really don't see a problem with that ;-)

TimH
03-06-2009, 11:11 AM
Germany had the technical superiority in WWII. They just had an idiot in charge...its always the idiot in charge.

Kaa
03-06-2009, 11:37 AM
Actually, almost everyone in Europe is speaking German now!:D

As either the first or the third language, the second being almost invariably English.

I bet this pisses off the French to no end :D

Kaa

Scott Rosen
03-06-2009, 12:09 PM
American participation in Europe and Africa was decisive, but maybe not necessary for an ultimate victory. Is shortened the war in any event.

The verdict on the Allied bombing campaign is that it did not come even close to achieving its goals of incapacitating German industrial capcity. Later efforts to bomb civilians came closer to realizing their aim -- to terrorize the population and disrupt the Nazi government, all at a terrible cost.

The notion that Hitler had a choice about invading the USSR is nonsense. The Third Reich could not have existed as a static entity, content to stay within the confines of Western Europe. The Third Reich's economy was built entirely on conquest, theft of resources and slave labor. The only way it could survive was to keep expanding its borders.

Kaa
03-06-2009, 12:20 PM
The notion that Hitler had a choice about invading the USSR is nonsense. The Third Reich could not have existed as a static entity, content to stay within the confines of Western Europe. The Third Reich's economy was built entirely on conquest, theft of resources and slave labor. The only way it could survive was to keep expanding its borders.

Can you expand this thought? It's not obvious to me that the Third Reich could not stop expanding for economic reasons. Let's imagine that Hitler did NOT invade Russia and that Stalin stayed within his 1941 borders -- would the German economy have collapsed in short order?

Kaa

Scott Rosen
03-06-2009, 12:33 PM
Can you expand this thought? It's not obvious to me that the Third Reich could not stop expanding for economic reasons. Let's imagine that Hitler did NOT invade Russia and that Stalin stayed within his 1941 borders -- would the German economy have collapsed in short order?

Kaa

Germany's industrial expansion was based on producing weapon sand war goods. Without conquest, Germany would have had to import and actually pay for most of its raw materials with its own currency. It would have had nothing to export at the time, except war goods. But it would have had no one to sell them to. After WWII, it took many years and $ billions of international investment for Germany to retool its economy. Germany could not have sustained its industrial growth on its own. I don't know how long it would have taken the German economy to collapse. But I think the resulting economic hardships would have caused major political upheaval and weakened the Reich to the point where it could no longer control all or even a substantial part of Europe.

Captain Blight
03-06-2009, 12:47 PM
We could use an even better mix of nationalities. But certainly I have learned an awful ot (mostly about the USA and Canada ;)) by coming here.
And, do you know, I have learned a tremendous amount from members of the Commonwealth. The 'Oz Politics' thread alone has been the equivalent of a uni course, and now I'm peppering my speech with phrases like "peppering my speech" and "Uni course."

Eventually I'm sure I'll learn to love cold rain and bland food based on fish and turnips.

boatbuddha
03-06-2009, 12:52 PM
Nope. The Germans didn't win with a knockout punch when they had strategic surprise, morale, and technological edge on their side. Once the war became a slugging match... well, no one wins a slugging match with Russia :-) At this point size matters a lot more and the Russians recreated a lot of their industry on the war footing behind the Urals, blunted the Germans' technological edge, and were doing much better morale-wise. They had many more bodies and more iron to throw into the meatgrinder, along with the political willingness to do so.

Nah, by 1943 Germany was truly screwed, West front or no West front.

Kaa


Poppycock, absent the war in the west the superior German industrial base would have ground the Russians down. With no war with the US in Africa or Italy the Germans eventually take at least European Russia, Asian Russia is probably to big and too empty to be effectively occupied.

TimH
03-06-2009, 01:17 PM
The history that I was taught, and have read since, is as stated by Scott. Germany was short of oil and short of food, thanks to the British naval blockade. Russia had both. But, more generally, the German economy was fundamentally unstable under Hitler - he made no attempt whatever to "balance the books"!

Sounds amazingly like the US under Bush! :eek:

Kaa
03-06-2009, 02:50 PM
Poppycock, absent the war in the west the superior German industrial base would have ground the Russians down.

You have any evidence to support this view? :-)

Kaa

Kaa
03-06-2009, 03:13 PM
The history that I was taught, and have read since, is as stated by Scott. Germany was short of oil and short of food, thanks to the British naval blockade. Russia had both. But, more generally, the German economy was fundamentally unstable under Hitler - he made no attempt whatever to "balance the books"!

That's all true. But I am still unconvinced that Hitler "had no choice" about invading Russia.

Imagine that in an alternate universe Hitler died in the spring of 1941 and his successor, while still very much Deutschland uber alles, turned out to be less expansionistic and more concerned with consolidation of the gains. Moreover, imagine that in the same alternative universe Stalin turned out to be less trusting of Hitler and had enough functional troops at Russia's western border. Would the attack on Russia still be inevitable?

I am not trying to make the argument that only if Germany stopped, it would have been alright and the Third Reich would have had a long and prosperous life. I am quite sure they wouldn't have been able to pull it off. But "no choice" about attacking Russia? I don't see it. Maybe for political/ideological reasons it was inevitable, but for economic reasons, I have my doubts.

Kaa

seanz
03-06-2009, 03:44 PM
Poppycock, absent the war in the west the superior German industrial base would have ground the Russians down. With no war with the US in Africa or Italy the Germans eventually take at least European Russia, Asian Russia is probably to big and too empty to be effectively occupied.

Asian Russia to big to be occupied? Well, the Russians managed it.



More 'fun' statistics from WW2


The cost to produce a T-34-85 tank was initially about thirty percent higher than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles; but by 1945 it was down to 142,000 (Harrison 2002:181). During the course of the war, the cost of a T-34 tank had been reduced by almost half, from 270,000 rubles in 1941 (Harrison 2002:181), while in the meantime its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

stevebaby
03-06-2009, 04:13 PM
As either the first or the third language, the second being almost invariably English.

I bet this pisses off the French to no end :D

KaaIs there anything that does not pissoff the French?:D

stevebaby
03-06-2009, 04:15 PM
And, do you know, I have learned a tremendous amount from members of the Commonwealth. The 'Oz Politics' thread alone has been the equivalent of a uni course, and now I'm peppering my speech with phrases like "peppering my speech" and "Uni course."

Eventually I'm sure I'll learn to love cold rain and bland food based on fish and turnips.I must protest at this unwarranted slur against New Zealand.:)

stevebaby
03-06-2009, 04:35 PM
Poppycock, absent the war in the west the superior German industrial base would have ground the Russians down. With no war with the US in Africa or Italy the Germans eventually take at least European Russia, Asian Russia is probably to big and too empty to be effectively occupied.The German Army was reliant on horse-drawn transport.

seanz
03-06-2009, 04:45 PM
I must protest at this unwarranted slur against New Zealand.:)

Most unfair....we've just come out of Summer and the rain is still quite warm.

PeterSibley
03-06-2009, 05:02 PM
me too :D , i picked up on the politics and the culture

Seconded .

PeterSibley
03-06-2009, 05:06 PM
Kaa , I'm right out of my depth here , but I had always assumed that a German /Soviet conflict was inevitable but that Hitler had jumped perhaps 3 years before Stalin expected it .
It seems inconceivable for totalitarian communism and totalitarian fascism to live together peacefully .

Robert L E
03-06-2009, 05:30 PM
To say that the USA was not critical to the war effort in Europe is a bit odd. The Soviets and the British both were critical but that does not mean that the USA was not. Massive amounts of food and war material was produced for the UK and to a lesser degree for the Soviets. What would have happened in Britain were they denied American food? British babies and children from the war years suffered some from reduced nutrition as it is even with American help.

The Soviet army was likely the most powerful in Europe at the end of the war but to say with certainty that they would have defeated Germany with no help from the West is a bit crystal ballish.


I really don't like judging people from the past based on today's values. They were not war crimes because our side won.
Years ago my daughter came home from school spouting off how wrong it was for us to have nuked Japan. I asked her if she knew where both of her grandfathers were when the bombs were dropped. She did not know nor did she know where three of her great uncles were or where the man I was named after was. All were in the Pacific theater of operations. I explained that there was a chance that she would not exist except for the bombs shortening the war. Even after both bombs there was an attempted coup in Japan to try to keep the war going.


All countries look at history emphasizing their own roles. So what.


All of this leads to a question- Was "Enemy At The Gates" released in a Russian language version and, if so, was it popular?

Bob

PeterSibley
03-06-2009, 05:47 PM
I really don't like judging people from the past based on today's values. They were not war crimes because our side won.

:eek::eek: What !!!!:eek: The strangeness that comes up in this place!

boatbuddha
03-06-2009, 05:52 PM
You have any evidence to support this view? :-)

Kaa

this isn't an evidence based thread.

stevebaby
03-06-2009, 06:21 PM
Most unfair....we've just come out of Summer and the rain is still quite warm.The food and wine is actually very good, as is much about NZ. We're lucky to have each other as neighbours.
I was just warming up for the annual Kiwi Bash a.k.a the Bledisloe...:D

If waterboarded for long enough, I would probably confess that the Kiwis build better wooden boats than we do...
(duck back into foxhole)

stevebaby
03-06-2009, 06:24 PM
We beat the Japanese and the Russians beat the Germans. The fight over the Red October Tractor Factory made Normandy look like a walk on the beach. Entire German armies disappeared into Russia. 176K at Stalingrad alone.As did Kursk, after which the Soviets started hammering nails into the Nazi coffin with great rapidity.

Nicholas Scheuer
03-06-2009, 06:25 PM
The Soviet Army was "the most powererful in Europe"?

Largest, maybe. The most brutish, maybe. But not nearly as sophisticated as the German, British, or American Armies.

In any contest other than shear numbers the Soviest would've been butchered.

Don't forget, the Soviets had Winter on their side in the battle for Stalingrad.

If Patton had gotten loose, he might have provan how velnerable the Soviets were to an incisive, creative offensive that might have defeated the Soviets long before reaching Stalingrad. Patton might have initiated such an offensive with delivery to "his Allies" of tanker trucks full of Vodka.

Moby Nick

stevebaby
03-06-2009, 06:29 PM
The Soviet Army was "the most powererful in Europe"?

Largest, maybe. The most brutish, maybe. But not nearly as sophisticated as the German, British, or American Armies.

In any contest other than shear numbers the Soviest would've been butchered.

Don't forget, the Soviets had Winter on their side in the battle for Stalingrad.

If Patton had gotten loose, he might have provan how velnerable the Soviets were to an incisive, creative offensive that might have defeated the Soviets long before reaching Stalingrad. Patton might have initiated such an offensive with delivery to "his Allies" of tanker trucks full of Vodka.

Moby NickHad Patton attempted to take on the Soviets, I think he would very likely have discovered what Napoleon and Hitler had ,to their great cost...General Winter always wins.
The Soviet's military success had a lot to do with, for one thing, the fact that they had the best artillery tactics of any party in the conflict.

Phillip Allen
03-06-2009, 06:46 PM
semantics Peter...a crime commited by the ultimate winner stops being a crime at the victory march...not before

Nicholas Scheuer
03-06-2009, 06:59 PM
Phillip, you missed where I speculated Patton would win long before reaching Russia.

He could send jeeploads of frauliens out with the vodka tankers, and catch whole regiments literally with their pants down.

The whole Runssian army would soon be riunning back toward Mother Russia as fast as their poorly shod feets would carry them.

Patton himself, along with a band of S-2 fluent in Russian, might have to leapfrog the retreat in order to direct traffic more efficiently.

Hey, I think I may have one hell of a movie script here. The long-awaited sequel to PATTON.

Moby Nick

PeterSibley
03-06-2009, 07:33 PM
Phillip, you missed where I speculated Patton would win long before reaching Russia.

He could send jeeploads of frauliens out with the vodka tankers, and catch whole regiments literally with their pants down.

The whole Runssian army would soon be riunning back toward Mother Russia as fast as their poorly shod feets would carry them.

Patton himself, along with a band of S-2 fluent in Russian, might have to leapfrog the retreat in order to direct traffic more efficiently.

Hey, I think I may have one hell of a movie script here. The long-awaited sequel to PATTON.

Moby Nick

Parallel universe fantasy section ?:D

Tinman
03-06-2009, 07:55 PM
I find it rather amusing that there are people here who think the western front was a side show. Well, when you consider sheer volume of men and materiel, you are right. But it is far more significant than some would let on, as was the allied bombing campaign. [ This tactic is not a war crime btw, it is merely the way the war was prosecuted. They couldn't use precision bombing, the technology wasn't there. More than that, it was accepted doctrine by both sides to try to break the will of the other guys civilian population through massive bombing of civilian centers. ] It should also be pointed out, that the threat of invasion from the west and the efforts of the RAF, RCAF, [ yes primarily at night ] and the 8th Air Force, tied up valuables resources that very well could have cast the eastern war far differently had they been available. Hitler was forced to commit tens of thousands of men to anti aircraft batteries to protect the homeland that very easily could have been employed in a devastating way to anti tank units on the eastern front. The primary weapon was the 88mm antieverything gun. there where half a million civilians working in between raids repairing bomb damage that could not be put to work in the war factories, and untold millions of tons of concrete and reinforcement, that went into flak towers, and other anti aircraft emplacements that might otherwise been used as pill boxes, strong points and anti tank obstacles against stalin. Consider as well the massive effort that went into the atlantic wall and how those resources might have been employed against Russia had there been no threat of invasion? So while it seems to be fashionable to downplay the role of the west in the outcome of world war two, it simply isn't accurate. Stalin wasn't begging for a western front for nothing.

pila
03-06-2009, 08:30 PM
It was called the "Russian steamroller" toward the end of the war.
The Germans mentioned, after the war, that the constant bombing of Ploesti was a big factor in German failure. Our neighbor was in Europe during the war , and he commented that there were rows of German aircraft , and no fuel, when the army pushed through Belgium.
He had some movie film of those times, and one part showed a V-1 (buzz-bomb) going overhead. That was interesting:)

Phillip Allen
03-06-2009, 09:19 PM
I find it rather amusing that there are people here who think the western front was a side show. Well, when you consider sheer volume of men and materiel, you are right. But it is far more significant than some would let on, as was the allied bombing campaign. [ This tactic is not a war crime btw, it is merely the way the war was prosecuted. They couldn't use precision bombing, the technology wasn't there. More than that, it was accepted doctrine by both sides to try to break the will of the other guys civilian population through massive bombing of civilian centers. ] It should also be pointed out, that the threat of invasion from the west and the efforts of the RAF, RCAF, [ yes primarily at night ] and the 8th Air Force, tied up valuables resources that very well could have cast the eastern war far differently had they been available. Hitler was forced to commit tens of thousands of men to anti aircraft batteries to protect the homeland that very easily could have been employed in a devastating way to anti tank units on the eastern front. The primary weapon was the 88mm antieverything gun. there where half a million civilians working in between raids repairing bomb damage that could not be put to work in the war factories, and untold millions of tons of concrete and reinforcement, that went into flak towers, and other anti aircraft emplacements that might otherwise been used as pill boxes, strong points and anti tank obstacles against stalin. Consider as well the massive effort that went into the atlantic wall and how those resources might have been employed against Russia had there been no threat of invasion? So while it seems to be fashionable to downplay the role of the west in the outcome of world war two, it simply isn't accurate. Stalin wasn't begging for a western front for nothing.


yes...this is "fashionable-history"

Tinman
03-06-2009, 09:43 PM
yes...this is "fashionable-history"

Don't give a damn about whether it is fashionalbe or not. It is the tuth.

Kaa
03-06-2009, 09:45 PM
Kaa , I'm right out of my depth here , but I had always assumed that a German /Soviet conflict was inevitable but that Hitler had jumped perhaps 3 years before Stalin expected it .
It seems inconceivable for totalitarian communism and totalitarian fascism to live together peacefully .

Well, keep in mind we're engaging in pure flight-of-fantasy alternate histories here. But I would argue that there is strong bias to call what actually happened "inevitable" and what didn't happen "inconceivable" :-) No way to test or falsify, of course...

But I see no problems at all in communism and fascism coexisting -- for a while, at least. They are brothers, mirror reflections of each other, and understand each other well.

Kaa

Tinman
03-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Inever could understand why hitler hated stalin and communism so much. I agree with your analysis Kaa, I jsut don't udnerstand the whole barbarossa thing.

Kaa
03-06-2009, 09:54 PM
The Soviet Army was "the most powererful in Europe"?

Largest, maybe. The most brutish, maybe. But not nearly as sophisticated as the German, British, or American Armies.

In any contest other than shear numbers the Soviest would've been butchered.

Oh, that's silly. In 1945 the Soviet Army was the most powerful in Europe. In fact, one of the more important reasons for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to gently make it known to Uncle Joe that there is a counter to him just continuing to push his armies westward.

Sophisticated? The Russian army at the end of the war was the product of the most brutal Darwinian selection for four years. The slow, the stupid, the unlucky died -- what was left was battle-hardened veterans who were perfectly capable of kicking major ass.


If Patton had gotten loose, he might have provan how velnerable the Soviets were to an incisive, creative offensive that might have defeated the Soviets long before reaching Stalingrad.

The Germans invented the "incisive, creative offensive" which they used with great success in Europe and in Russia throughout 1941 and 1942. It's just that Russia turned out to be too damn big. At some point you bog down, your logistics train falls apart and the Russians are still shooting at you.

Kaa

WX
03-06-2009, 09:55 PM
I think we can say that the war in the West gave the Russians a breathing space where they could regroup, retrain and get their factories out of harms way. Maybe if Hitler had not invaded Western Europe he might had stood a chance at getting enough of Russia to knock it out of the war or at least force it to sue for peace in exchange for territory....we will never know. One thing the Western Allies did do and that was save Western Europe from Russian liberation. :D

Kaa
03-06-2009, 09:57 PM
Inever could understand why hitler hated stalin and communism so much. I agree with your analysis Kaa, I jsut don't udnerstand the whole barbarossa thing.

Oh, Hitler didn't hate Stalin, they were the best of buddies while dividing up Poland :D

But Hitler was hung up on needing lebensraum -- the living space for the superrace -- and Russia was the only place where he could get it.

Kaa

WX
03-06-2009, 09:58 PM
Regarding the Pacific War, the US beat the Japanese...with help but it was mostly them. However keep in mind that vast Japanese resources were tried up fighting the Chinese.

Nicholas Scheuer
03-06-2009, 10:04 PM
"Psssstt!" Somebody wake up Lemay and tell him there was no such thing as "precision bombing".

"Daylight Precision Bombing" was like a mantra in the USAAC.

And if the Norden Bombsight was not precise, why was everyone else trying to get their hands on one?

Moby Nick

Tinman
03-06-2009, 10:04 PM
true and that actually predates 1939 by a few years if memory serves

Nicholas Scheuer
03-06-2009, 10:07 PM
I don't believe Patton would've wanted the Whermacht to do anything. American Troops would have been better motivated to fight under Patton. He liked to move in a fierce offensive, and his troops knew how to do that.

Moby Nick

seanz
03-06-2009, 10:15 PM
I think we can say that the war in the West gave the Russians a breathing space where they could regroup, retrain and get their factories out of harms way. Maybe if Hitler had not invaded Western Europe he might had stood a chance at getting enough of Russia to knock it out of the war or at least force it to sue for peace in exchange for territory....we will never know. One thing the Western Allies did do and that was save Western Europe from Russian liberation. :D

There is a continuous error made by military planners, despots , dictators and the Pentagon included........they always try to refight the last war.
So, with a buffer to the East and France dealt with, Adolf thought he was all go on European domination.

Any guesses for the European nation with the most campaign experience* in the post WW1 period?
It's not Spain..........

*This should bring up some interesting statistics. :D

PeterSibley
03-06-2009, 10:21 PM
It's interesting to war game the Patton Fantasy Scenario, that is take the Allied forces on the ground at the time and combine them with the surviving elements of the Wehrmacht, fueled and supplied by the Allies and turn them against the Russians. When the war game is played by somebody with drive, like Patton, it's extremely difficult for the Russians, on the verge of collapse in many respects, to hold on to Eastern Europe. When given a Wehrmachts' revenge based first units in scenario it's just fascinating to "watch" the Wehrmacht units with all those freed up 88's somebody mentioned up higher take on any Russian tank army, supported with the entire Allied Air Force in a destruction of supply lines and depots role.

Brings to mind the thread I started some time ago ....Why weren't the USA and Germany allies against the common enemy ?

WX
03-06-2009, 10:24 PM
Regarding Patton, there was the little problem of insufficient fuel reserves. The Allies may have held Antwerp but they didn't control the coastal approaches to the city, the Germans did. To make matters worse they let the German 15th Army cross the Westerschelde unopposed and escape to Holland...but what can you do when your army is mechanised and you have bugger all fuel.

Kaa
03-06-2009, 10:29 PM
Brings to mind the thread I started some time ago ....Why weren't the USA and Germany allies against the common enemy ?

When? During WW2? Basically because the USA were friends with the Brits and Germany were friends with Japan.

Kaa

WX
03-06-2009, 10:31 PM
Surprisingly Guderian was influenced by J.F.C. Fuller and Liddell-Hart, both British supporter of armoured warfare and pretty much ignored by their own military at the time.

The Bigfella
03-06-2009, 10:37 PM
You know Ian, you throw this out here a lot, almost always acerbically in tone that the U.S. needs a reality check on its role in history. I'm not gonna argue that Russia and China didn't indeed play a huge role in the the ultimate victory over both Japan and Germany, however to say that the primary reason for the victory was their huge loss of military personel does ignore that superior military startegy, industrial might, as well as technical superiority contributed in a large meausre to the victories.

Regardless of how many Chinese were killed in battle in WWII it must be admitted that ultimately Japan was a naval power and their defeat was ensured by United States naval victories - and no less than that.

On to the war in Europe, surely you don't believe Russia would have been able to overrun Germany without the sustained strategic bombing campaign conducted from the West, done almostsolely with heavy American bombers, carrying bombs manufactured in America, flown by American air crews, and escorted by the dominate long range fighters of the day - also all American.




that should get it started...

Yeah - that gets it started - but let's clarify something about the "acerbical tone"... (hmmm - I wonder what the other word was?)

My post was in response to this.... on another thread, referring to GM. If the tone is acerbic, I wonder why? Incidentally - I don't think I've ever thrown it out there.... I tend to respond to claims like this....

"And its not just the failure of a company, its the failure of a company that made us a superpower, a company that won WW II. A company, that once upon a time, had such sheer fantastic industrial capacity, that when we entered WW II, it turned on a dime and within WEEKS started producing tanks and planes and guns and ships, and with this absolutely miraculous, stunning display of what capitalism is capable of, WON THE WAR with its overwhelming output of materiel. ..."

A claim that is pure fantasy - and as I intimated, straight out of Hollywood. As I said on the other thread...


"Hollywood strikes again......

"WW2 was won by the Russians (and just to counter the inevitable response - only 10% of their materiel was provided by the US) and the Chinese - who between them took 10 million of our 11.4 million battle deaths. Between 1942 and 1944 the percentage of German troops in the western parts of Europe was as low as 12% of their total and it only reached 20% in 1944.

"GM did not win the war."

...and to add to that - I seem to recall that the American materiel contribution to Britain was in the order of 25%. Of course it was critical, as was the contribution to Oz's armed forces (P40's, Mustangs, etc). I never said it wasn't.


I don't know about Ian, but I believe that.

The US' participation in WW2 was certainly helpful and just as certainly not decisive on the European front. Germany effectively lost the war when it failed to overrun Russia during the initial blitzkrieg. With the benefit of hindsight, of course, it was all over after Stalingrad and Kursk. There was still a need for lots of blood and time, but the outcome was clear.

On the Pacific front things were different, of course. Without the US, Russia and China would likely have been able to push Japan out of Asia mainland, but probably wouldn't have invaded Japan, at least for a while. Here the US role was decisive. But in Europe it was not.

Kaa

By the time the US entered the war, a lot had already been done that would lead to the defeat of both Germany and Japan.

Scott mentioned:



American participation in Europe and Africa was decisive, but maybe not necessary for an ultimate victory. Is shortened the war in any event.



Hmm. I know the use of casualties doesn't tell the whole story, but US casualties in the North African campaign totalled 2,715 killed. Put that alongside the British Empire (yeah we Australians, the Kiwis and others are in this lot) and Free French and it isn't even 1 in 15 of the casualties on our side. The Axis casualties totalled almost one million. The hard work was done well before the US came to the party - Rommel had been rolled back - but the input was certainly helpful.

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

Dare I point out that Rommel's first ever defeat was at the hands of the Aussies (with some Pommie drop shorts assisting)?

As for the Pacific Campaign. No - it wasn't just a naval war. Too much Hollywood again.

Consider the casualties first up. Taking Wiki as a source...
Combat deaths...

Japan - 1.75 million (plus 393,000 civilians...)

China - 3.8 million soldiers (+17 million civilians)
USA - 106,207
India - 86,838
Phillipines - 57,000
UK - 52,000
Australia - 17,501
Soviets - 12,031

It actually ran from July 1937 - August 1945 - betcha Hollywood didn't tell you that. The whole China - Japan thing went back even further.

Did it tell you that the first land defeat of the Japanese during WW2 was at the hands of the Aussies, in New Guinea? That pissed Macarthur off so much that he wouldn't use them in the island campaigns for anything other than useless mopping up. He preferred to send raw US troops to their deaths rather than use the most experienced soldiers he had.

As for it being a naval campaign, I say rubbish. What about the occupation of the Phillipines, Malaya and Singapore, Thailand, China, Burma, New Guinea, etc.

Let's call this an opening comment. The battles that the Americans (and the Australians for that matter) were sideshows to where the war was won - in the Soviet Union and China.

... from Wiki....



The Second Sino-Japanese War (July 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_7), 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937) to September 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_9), 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945)) was the largest Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia) war in the twentieth century.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_war#cite_note-3) From 1937 to 1941, it was fought between the Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China) and the Empire of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan). After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor), the Second Sino-Japanese War merged into the greater conflict of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) as a major front in the Pacific Theatre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Theatre).

The Bigfella
03-06-2009, 10:45 PM
Not true. The blitzkrieg was developed precisely to avoid the trench warfare of WW1. I think it's difficult for the non-professional to understand the massive changes in everything to do with the operational strategy of warfighting between the two wars. The British and Commonwealth forces always excepted. Although the Brits had a couple really good tank guys, nobody listened.

Milo - the two standout Generals of WW1 were Currie - a Canadian and Monash, an Aussie. Monash incidentally was the last foreign General to command a large US contingent. Blitzkreig is simply a name given by the Germans to the tactics used against them by Monash that actually ended the trench warfare in WW1

From Wiki.... Field Marshal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Marshal) Bernard Montgomery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Law_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of _Alamein) later wrote: "I would name Sir John Monash as the best general on the western front in Europe".

Why was Monash so good? He developed the techniques that were refined by the Germans during the intervening years into their Blitzkreig tactics. Monash was the first, for example to use machine guns as an offensive weapon.

Again - from Wiki...

Monash's impact on Australian military thinking was significant in three areas. Firstly he was the first Australian overall commander of Australian forces and took, as subsequent Australian commanders did, a relatively independent line with his British superiors. Secondly, he promoted the concept of the commander's duty to ensure the safety and well-being of his troops to a pre-eminent position. And finally, he, along with the brilliant Staff Officer Thomas Blamey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Blamey) forcefully demonstrated the benefit of thorough planning and integration of all arms of the forces available, and of all of the components supporting the front line forces, including logistical, medical and recreational services. Troops later recounted that one of the most extraordinary things about the Battle of Hamel was not the use of armoured cars, nor simply the tremendous success of the operation, but the fact that in the midst of battle Monash had arranged delivery of hot meals up to the front line.

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

WX
03-06-2009, 11:07 PM
It's not all about size Milo.

Tinman
03-06-2009, 11:10 PM
it is pretty clear by all of this, that it really did take a hurculean effort by all the western powers to defeat the axis. [ I am including Russia in the west simply because of their alliance during the war. That stated to come to an end even before the war was over in Europe but there is no denying their role in helping to defeat Germany ] All the Allied countries played pivital roles whether it be the British commonwealth pilot training plan here in Canada, lend lease and the industrial might of the Amerricans, or the Stubborn refusal of the British to capitulate during the Battle of Britian, everyone contributed a key component. the lesson here, is two fold. In the first case, appeasement of despots and dictators leads to carnage on a massive scale, and the other is the cost in human lives, lost resources and physical damage that appeasement ends up costing all sides is incalucable. I only wish we would learn these lessons once and for all.

seanz
03-06-2009, 11:37 PM
Not true. The blitzkrieg was developed precisely to avoid the trench warfare of WW1. I think it's difficult for the non-professional to understand the massive changes in everything to do with the operational strategy of warfighting between the two wars.

Sigh......

First you say 'not true', then in your next statement you agree with me.

Yes, it is difficult to understand, but not impossible.

PatCox
03-06-2009, 11:50 PM
Bigfella, thank you for the reality check. But despite anything and everything, GM was a force in the world. And its now dying, destroyed by the countries it helped defeat in WWII. Germany and Japan. Wow.

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 12:07 AM
Bigfella, thank you for the reality check. But despite anything and everything, GM was a force in the world. And its now dying, destroyed by the countries it helped defeat in WWII. Germany and Japan. Wow.

Its actually dying because of its inflexibility. It simply hasn't adapted to changing times - it needed to address the defined benefits issue decades ago - and it knew it. There are solutions - some less palatable than others, but the longer they leave it the more they and many more will suffer.

Milo - the three campaigns that the Allied forces were involved in that contributed most to the defeat of Germany and Japan ....

The Battle of Britain - stopped the invasion, tied up some troops in the West (remember, Germany had 75%+ of its troops in the East from 1942-44). Here's their troop disposition.... by number of Divisions

Country 1941 1942 1943 1944
USSR 34 171 179 157
France, Belgium & Holland 38 27 42 56
Norway & Finland 13 16 16 16
Balkans 7 8 17 20
Italy 0 0 0 22
Denmark 1 1 2 3
North Africa 2 3 0 0

... the bombing war - which as ACB pointed out wasn't just one country. Hell, my uncle even took out a power station in occupied France in an Intruder raid in a Mosquito. Which raises a side issue - a Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as a B17 - and in much more safety.

... and the one that led to the defeat of Japan was the submarine war in the Pacific (not forgetting a pair of B29s carrying a single bomb each).

Yeah - the Battle of the Atlantic and the Islands campaigns in the Pacific were important - but nowhere near as important as those others in terms of bringing down the enemy.

Still - I haven't changed my view - the Soviets and Chinese did more to defeat the Germans and the Japanese.....

Tinman
03-07-2009, 12:08 AM
At the risk of contributing to thread drift, GM's problems have far less to do with Germany and Japan, and far more to do with crap cars, and pension plans.

Kaa
03-07-2009, 12:18 AM
GM was a force in the world. And its now dying, destroyed by the countries it helped defeat in WWII. Germany and Japan. Wow.

Dinosaurs die.

It's a good thing.

Kaa

P.S. GM's wounds were almost entirely self-inflicted.

PeterSibley
03-07-2009, 12:21 AM
At the risk of contributing to thread drift, GM's problems have far less to do with Germany and Japan, and far more to do with crap cars, and pension plans.

Agreed .The US lack of a national health scheme doesn't help .

PatCox
03-07-2009, 12:23 AM
Everything else aside, this fantasy that Patton could have pushed on to Russia, its a ludicrous idea. As was mentioned before, the nukes on Hiroshima and particularly Nagasaki, were as much a message to the USSR as to Japan. We had to end the Pacific war before the USSR got into it and claimed its share of the spoils.

My uncle was in Patton's army, was encircled, but not captured, in the bulge, and met the Russians at the Elbe, he told me that they paddled over the river in little boats and he did vodka toasts with Russian troops, by the side of the Elbe river.

He said the troops loved Patton, and hated him, and regarded him as completely insane.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
03-07-2009, 12:41 AM
But I am not sure that either the red or the blue numbers are anything to be proud of; today they would be considered war crimes, they killed very large numbers of civilians, men, women and children, often in very horrible ways, and their effect on the war is disputed.

Well they did not have the benefit of what we now call "smart" weapons technology. They did the best, in terms of bombing precision, that they were able, for the most part. Most targets were legitimate military and industry. There were exceptions, most notable the bombing of Dresden, no question. But for the most part, the Allies did as best as they could. Soon after the war, propaganda prevailed. But by now, most atrocities on all sides have been exposed. Compare this to the near random bombing of London by the V1 buzz bombs and V2 rockets, and the Allied strategies look ok. (And the Dresden bombing was supposedly payback for London. Not saying it was justified, but that's the consensus of thought regarding motive.)

pila
03-07-2009, 01:08 AM
There were a few thousand plane raids on cities like Cologne, where many civilians died. War doesn't pick and choose very well. everyone is a target.

When I was young during the war, there was a news guy by the name of Elmer Davis on the radio each evening, giving the blow-by-blow of combat for the day. Anyone here remember that? Can't remember which network he was on.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 01:57 AM
"Psssstt!" Somebody wake up Lemay and tell him there was no such thing as "precision bombing".

"Daylight Precision Bombing" was like a mantra in the USAAC.

And if the Norden Bombsight was not precise, why was everyone else trying to get their hands on one?

Moby NickThe Dambusters raid and the raid by the Mosquitoes of the RAF on the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen proved that precision bombing was achievable.
Awesome aeroplane, the Mozzie.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 02:05 AM
At the risk of contributing to thread drift, GM's problems have far less to do with Germany and Japan, and far more to do with crap cars, and pension plans.This is the second time I agree with you now, and it can't go on. I'll turn you into a commie yet.

seanz
03-07-2009, 02:15 AM
The Dambusters raid and the raid by the Mosquitoes of the RAF on the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen proved that precision bombing was achievable.
Awesome aeroplane, the Mozzie.

Just keep them above the lamp-posts :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carthage

Both of those raids can be used in arguments against aerial bombardment......it's never hit and miss, it's always hit and then no-one can be absolutely sure what will get destroyed.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 02:29 AM
I don't believe Patton would've wanted the Whermacht to do anything. American Troops would have been better motivated to fight under Patton. He liked to move in a fierce offensive, and his troops knew how to do that.

Moby NickThe Soviets (under Zhukov) slapped down the Japanese Army very decisively before the Western Allies ever encountered them.It took 4 years for the western Allies to beat the Japanese.
The Japanese Army never again took the Soviets on.
IMO, Zhukov was the most effective general of the war.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 02:38 AM
Just keep them above the lamp-posts :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carthage

Both of those raids can be used in arguments against aerial bombardment......it's never hit and miss, it's always hit and then no-one can be absolutely sure what will get destroyed.I can't argue with what you say. Technically, both raids were very successful, but the Dambusters raid had little real effect on the nazi war effort and killed a lot of Russian POWs, and the Copenhagen raid also killed Danish civilians.
I still think that the Copenhagen raid in particular proved that precise pinpoint bombing was possible.
Whether it was strategically desirable...I'll leave that to other armchair generals to debate.

Edited to add...there are likely many definitions of "precise pinpoint bombing". I think the Copenhagen raid was intended to minimize civilian casualties, and as your link states, the raid was at the request of the Danish Resistance.
But you're right...there are always civilian casualties, and the planners of both raids knew that.

johnw
03-07-2009, 03:37 AM
It strikes me that the winners had industrial bases that were not getting bombed. The Russians behind the Urals, the Americans in, well, America. British and American bombing raids on Germany certainly helped the Russians, and Russian ground forces took the fight out of the German army. I don't think the Russians could have done the bombing themselves.

Bigfella, wasn't it Patton who said that no soldier ever won a war by dying for his country? The idea was to make the other fellow die for his country. China's ill-equipped and poorly trained army was capable of losing while having more men die than the Japanese did. Those numbers on casualties show who paid the biggest price. They don't show who was most effective.

Not sure who said the Germans had the best technology, but what a crock. British radar and American nukes were the decisive technologies.

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 04:12 AM
Steve - Zhukov did indeed defeat the Japanese in what began as the Manchurian border skirmishes and quickly escalated. These were before WW2 though...

John - I agree with you there - not just the Chinese, but also the Russians were very wasteful of their men. The casualties though do provide a proxy for the level of fighting that was going on. While we were fighting a couple of Divisions in North Africa, the Russians were fighting 170+ Divisions.

I don't mean to belittle the efforts of any of the combatants - they were tough yards that they all made... its just that the numbers fighting on two fronts that are often ignored were a massive multiple of those fighting elsewhere.

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 04:35 AM
Looking at just a few battles ... the two big ones in the Pacific were ....

Guadalcanal - 60,000 Allied troops (7,100 killed) - 36,200 Japanese (31,000 killed)

Iwo Jima - 110,000 US troops (6,821 killed) - 22,786 Japanese (21,703 killed)

So - there are the two supposed big battles in the Pacific - and they, together account for just 3% of Japanese combat deaths in WW2

(HEY PAUL - there's some statistics for you)

The Battle of Midway is a biggie - but there were only 3,000 Japanese killed.

So - who killed the other 1.7 million of them?

(and that doesn't include the civilians killed with the Bombs or firestorms)

Germany lost about 3.5 million troops during WW2 - and a fair whack of them were at Stalingrad (750,000 killed or wounded, another 91,000 captured)

Wiki says that German sources say they lost 50,000 killed, wounded or captured at Kursk and they say the Ruskies lost 180,000 killed, wounded or captured. The Russians say the Germans lost 500,000 and themselves 863,303. Either way, it was a biggie - and I reckon the Ruskies might be closer to the mark Other sites back the Russian version, eg

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_kursk.htm

The Battle of the Bulge involved about 90,000 killed, wounded or captured on each side.

The D Day landings were a minor skirmish by comparison - 10,000 Allies killed, wounded or captured and between 4,000-9,000 Germans.

So - if Axis troop losses are known, as are the losses in individual battles - what is wrong with using them as a proxy for saying where the war was lost by Germany and Japan?

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 04:38 AM
Steve - Zhukov did indeed defeat the Japanese in what began as the Manchurian border skirmishes and quickly escalated. These were before WW2 though...

John - I agree with you there - not just the Chinese, but also the Russians were very wasteful of their men. The casualties though do provide a proxy for the level of fighting that was going on. While we were fighting a couple of Divisions in North Africa, the Russians were fighting 170+ Divisions.

I don't mean to belittle the efforts of any of the combatants - they were tough yards that they all made... its just that the numbers fighting on two fronts that are often ignored were a massive multiple of those fighting elsewhere.I'm off for dinner at the pub (:)), so will chat later and explore the first point if you like. It's a little-known part of the war, neglected by Western historians, but I believe it is vitally relevant to any sort of understanding of the larger conflict. There were many factors in a very complex conflict,as you obviously know, and I don't believe that without knowing all the reasons that the various protagonists had for their actions, that a full understanding can be reached.
As I'm sure you'll agree, and I can't avoid the useful cliche.."those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them"...or "words to that effect, Your Honour".
Hope you had fun with the torture-boarding, it wasn't the best day for it weather-wise...reckon we both earned a drink today!

seanz
03-07-2009, 04:52 AM
(HEY PAUL - there's some statistics for you)



The D Day landings were a minor skirmish by comparison - 10,000 Allies killed, wounded or captured and between 4,000-9,000 Germans.

So - if Axis troop losses are known, as are the losses in individual battles - what is wrong with using them as a proxy for saying where the war was lost by Germany and Japan?

Ahem.
The casualties on D-day may have been light but that was a massive beach-head.....which led to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
2 million Allied troops isn't a sideshow, now, is it?

Though I do like your analysis of the where the war was won and lost using Axis casualty figures...very revealing.

Nicholas Scheuer
03-07-2009, 06:51 AM
PatCox's uncle's assesment of Patton holds up in reading his own as well as the books of others.

Patton fighting on the Russia is a fun fantasy (lot's of people would like to fight ww2 over, but with rubber bullets) but remember, Patton thought he could do it. That makes a difference.

I had an uncle who was wounded in the Ardennes. He was not in Patton's Army, but rather part of the Indiana Troops who were rescued.

Moby Nick

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 07:03 AM
The wiki article on Patton is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#After_the_German_surrender

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 07:03 AM
So Paul.... How revisionist am I, how are my statistics?

Paul Pless
03-07-2009, 07:11 AM
So Paul.... How revisionist am I, how are my statistics?My argument against your position is that large number of deaths is not necessarily the best indicator of what contributed to victory as you seem to have implied here:
WW2 was won by the Russians (and just to counter the inevitable response - only 10% of their materiel was provided by the US) and the Chinese - who between them took 10 million of our 11.4 million battle deaths.by way of example, a major turning point in the war had relatively few casualties associated with it...
The Battle of Midway is a biggie - but there were only 3,000 Japanese killed.
thus showing that superior industrial capacity and startegy as well as a little luck contributed as much to the outcome as sheer numbers of troops.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 07:26 AM
The wiki article on Patton is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#After_the_German_surrenderCarlo D'Este, in Patton: A Genius for War, writes that "it seems virtually inevitable ... that Patton experienced some type of brain damage from too many head injuries" from a lifetime of numerous auto- and horse-related accidents, especially one suffered while playing polo in 1936.

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 07:54 AM
My argument against your position is that large number of deaths is not necessarily the best indicator of what contributed to victory as you seem to have implied here:by way of example, a major turning point in the war had relatively few casualties associated with it...thus showing that superior industrial capacity and startegy as well as a little luck contributed as much to the outcome as sheer numbers of troops.

Of course superior industrial capacity comes into it - not just with the US, but also the Soviets and the Chinese. The Japanese in particular knew they could never defeat the US. Their strategy was to grab a whole heap of territory and sue for peace - but they miscalculated.

Incidentally - this particular chap is Chinese...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/NRA_gas_mask_and_Mauser.jpg/150px-NRA_gas_mask_and_Mauser.jpg

From wiki again...

Although Imperial Japan possessed significant mobile operational capacity, it did not possess capability for maintaining a long sustained war. At the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War the Japanese Army comprised 17 divisions, each composed of approximately 22,000 men, 5,800 horses, 9,500 rifles and submachine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun), 600 heavy machine guns of assorted types, 108 artillery pieces, and 24 tanks. Special forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces) were also available. The Japanese Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy) displaced a total of 1,900,000 tonnes, ranking third in the world, and possessed 2,700 aircraft at the time. Each Japanese division was the equivalent in fighting strength of four Chinese regular divisions (at the beginning of Battle of Shanghai (1937) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai_(1937))).

Take a look at the casualty assessment section of this link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Casualties_assessment

Someone made the point earlier that the war in the East was a naval war. It clearly was not - despite the fact that Japan had a large navy. The vast majority of Japanese forces (80%) were always in China, through to Burma. The US was highly successful with its navy, however - and if you compare the various submarine success ratios you find....

1. USA, total no of subs lost 52, total tonnage sunk 5.2m, total number sunk 1314, number of ships sunk per loss= 23, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 101,923tons.

2. UK, total no of subs lost 75, total tonnage sunk 1.52m, total number sunk 697, number of ships sunk per loss= 9.3, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 20.266tons

3. Germany, total no of subs lost 781, total tonnage sunk 14.5m, total number sunk 2,828, number of ships sunk per loss= 3.6, tonnage of ships sunk per loss=18,565tons

4. Italy,total no of subs lost 82, total tonnage sunk 1.0m, total number sunk n/a, number of ships sunk per loss n/a, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 12,195 tons

5. Japan, total no of subs lost 127, total tonnage sunk 0.907m, total number sunk 184, number of ships sunk per loss= 1.4, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 6,923tons

6. Russia, total no of subs lost 109, total tonnage sunk 0.402m, total number sunk 160, number of ships sunk per loss= 1.5, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 3,692tons

Dutch??????????

http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 08:08 AM
This is a classic piece from Wiki. It TOTALLY ignores the fact that 80% of the Imperial Japanese Army was in the China sphere....

This sort of stuff is the real revisionist history.......


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan#Pacific_War

Path to defeat (1942-45)

Japanese military strategists were keenly aware of the unfavorable discrepancy between the industrial potential of the Japanese Empire and that of the United States. Because of this they reasoned that Japanese success hinged on their ability to extend the strategic advantage gained at Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor) with additional rapid strategic victories. The Japanese Command reasoned that only decisive destruction of the United States' Pacific Fleet and conquest of its remote outposts would ensure that the Japanese Empire would not be overwhelmed by America's industrial might. In May 1942, failure to decisively defeat the Allies at the Battle of Coral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coral_Sea) in spite of Japanese numerical superiority equated to a strategic defeat for Imperial Japan. This setback was followed in June 1942 by the catastrophic loss of a four carrier task force at the Battle of Midway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway). Midway was a decisive defeat for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and proved the turning point for the war. Further defeats by the Allies at Guadalcanal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_campaign) in September 1942, and New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guinea) in 1943 put the Empire of Japan on the defensive for the remainder of the war. By 1943 and 1944, Allied forces, backed by the industrial might and vast raw material resources of the United States, were advancing steadily towards Japan. The US Sixth Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Army) led by General MacArthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_MacArthur) landed on Leyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyte) on 19 October 1944, in the subsequent months (Philippines campaign of 1944–1945) of the combined United States and the Philippine Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Commonwealth) troops together with Filipino guerrilla forces liberated much of the Philippines. By 1944 the Allies had seized or bypassed and neutralized many of Japan's strategic bases through amphibious landings and bombardment. This, coupled with the losses inflicted by Allied submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_submarines_in_the_Pacific_War) on Japanese shipping routes began to strangle Japan's economy and undermine its ability to supply its army. By early 1945 the US Marines had wrested control of the Ogasawa Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ogasawa_Islands&action=edit&redlink=1) in several hard-fought battles such as the Battle of Iwo Jima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima), marking the beginning of the fall of the islands of Japan.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 09:13 AM
It's interesting to examine, as far as any westerner could, the internal tensions between the Japanese Army and their Imperial Navy, the roots of which lie far back in history and are related to the ancient clan systems of the samurai. The internal politics of pre-war and post Meiji Restoration are labarynthine to say the least and too complex to summarise in an internet post.
Even so, it's worth some research for anyone who wants to understand the causes of the Asian War.
Admiral Perry and his "Black Ships" had a lot to answer for. Memories are long in the East.
Face is all.

Phillip Allen
03-07-2009, 09:16 AM
this is a by gosh interesting thread...I don't have time to read carefully though...I wish the little side battles between various national egos could be left out to make it easier to wade through...thanks to all the contributers

Peerie Maa
03-07-2009, 09:37 AM
When I was first learning small unit operational strategy (early 70's) we used a wargame that became a commercial product - PanzerBlitz - that took actual small unit engagements from historical records of the great armored campaigns in Russia. It was always interesting to have to use horse drawn wagons, sometimes on both sides. Being allowed to substitute half tracks or trucks for the horse drawn units always made for much more decisive movement. The Germans had so much trouble in Russia getting their infantry there on time. I wonder how that would have all turned out if Germany had had a GM that wasn't continually bombed to pieces night and day.

There is an interesting insight into the German mentality that may be relevant. The Germans relied very heavily on the railways, such was their preoccupation with rail that when they were retreating through Europe after D Day, that they ripped up the tracks, the allies had never planned on using rail, so that act was a strategic waste of time. One wonders whether your comment about logistics in Russia was also affected by their pro rail mindset.

stevebaby
03-07-2009, 09:56 AM
There is an interesting insight into the German mentality that may be relevant. The Germans relied very heavily on the railways, such was their preoccupation with rail that when they were retreating through Europe after D Day, that they ripped up the tracks, the allies had never planned on using rail, so that act was a strategic waste of time. One wonders whether your comment about logistics in Russia was also affected by their pro rail mindset.Oh hell yeah. Thirty years ago my old boss, a former RN Commander, took the Tran-Siberian trip. He kept noticing really long platforms along the road miles from any towns and asked why they were there.
So a troop train could pull up and disembark a whole trainload of troops in one go.

johnw
03-07-2009, 02:30 PM
1. USA, total no of subs lost 52, total tonnage sunk 5.2m, total number sunk 1314, number of ships sunk per loss= 23, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 101,923tons.


5. Japan, total no of subs lost 127, total tonnage sunk 0.907m, total number sunk 184, number of ships sunk per loss= 1.4, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 6,923tons

This points up the problem with using casualties to illustrate the intensity of warfare. I doubt the Chinese sunk many Japanese subs or, for that matter, much shipping. But for an island nation to make war on the mainland as well as many other islands, naval superiority is a must. Clearly, American sub warfare was far more effective than Japanese sub warfare, which was a symptom of the American dominance in naval warfare.

It's been said that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics. The Americans managed without great loss of life to disrupt Japanese logistics. I'd say the American and British bombing of Germany had a similar effect on that front. This was possible because of American and British industrial might, and the fact that the British were more successful at air defense than the Germans.

The bombings forced the Germans to spread out industrial operations into smaller shops so they couldn't all be wiped out at once, thereby losing economies of scale. Of course, they also ran into manpower shortages, in part because so many men were needed on the Russian front, in part because they never had an equivalent to the "Rosie the riveter" system for using women in industry.

Our superiority in the air war had a lot to do with the industrial production of the allies (I'm including Russia here,) and that air superiority in turn allowed us to disrupt their logistics to the point where they didn't have enough fuel to wage war.

Bob Smalser
03-07-2009, 03:34 PM
It's been said that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics.



Finally, a glimmer of hope someone here understands what's missing in these interesting but woefully shallow revisionist theories. Namely, a solid grounding in the various official and contemporary histories and a basic understanding of conventional war.

While it may be fun to read this revisionist stuff slanted to a particular political view and regurgitate its data to impress the troops, it's somewhat laughable to consider that not once here as anyone except John even considered the basics, like these few examples:

....that the short straw in both peace and war for both Germany and Japan was that the oil and many of the raw materials they depended on was elsewhere.

....that attrition alone is never decisive without also breaking political will, which didn't occur until Hitler's death in Berlin and Hiroshima in Japan. Both of which required huge and multiple offensive campaigns only possible through a massive logistical tail that began in forest, field and mine and proceeded through transport, processing, manufacturing, packaging, organizing and further transport and distribution several thousand miles forward.

....that China never had the war materials to mount an effective offense necessary to decisively oust Japan from China....let alone defeat her globally....even once we opened the Lido Road. The tonnage required was simply too great for one resupply route.

....that T-34 and other Soviet production was impressive, but each T-34 required a minimum of two, 2 1/2-Ton trucks to serve it, among other assets. Assets provided in no small part by the US and Allied Merchant Marine. It's no coincidence that even to this day Russian trucks tend to look like 1942 Studebakers.

....that "What-iffing" scenarios based on hypothetical changes to circumstance are more akin to conspiracy theory nonsense than anything useful. The absence of any major player....especially the logistics juggernaut provided by North America.... would have as a minimum drawn out the war markedly, and perhaps even irreparably.

BarnacleGrim
03-07-2009, 03:41 PM
Nobody really won. Everybody suffered considerable losses, but in the end, the axis was defeated. America certainly won in the sense that it got the better deal, compared to the USSR, in terms of military strength and resources when the war was over.

seanz
03-07-2009, 04:12 PM
Nobody really won.

No, nobody really wins a war.

We have the words 'victors and vanquished'......'winners and losers' is for sport.

Tinman
03-07-2009, 04:12 PM
There seems to be a fasination with overall casualty rates to determine who one and who lost. But when you look at any war,all the big battles, are set up by tiny events that may appear to be insignificant at the time. The accidental bombing of a school by the Luftwaffe during it's attacks against British radar stations and airfields is a perfect example. The RAF retaliated by sending three blenheim bombers to drop a handfull of bombs on Berlin. That so enraged Hitler that he vowed to wipe London off the map, and in the trying, allowed the RAF to recover and eventually beat him at the battle of Britain. Wars are not won or los by the major battles that make them up, but instead by the little events that set the stage for them to happen. My point gentelmen, is it isn't about who killled how many, that is ususally a sign of lousy leadership on one side. But rather how little acts of courage, or even cowardice can and do change the course of battles, wars, and even history itself.

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 04:53 PM
John and Bob raise interesting points about raw materials and logistics, which are the underlying points to where the war was won. I have used - and consistently said - that casualties provide a proxy for where the action was.

It stands to reason that if there were only 23,000 Japanese troops on Iwo Jima - and 200 times as many as that in the Chinese theatre, then the logistics issues weren't with the ships delivering supplies to Iwo Jima - were they? Yet, in that quote I provided above (post 110) - not a single mention of anything beyond the US campaigns in the total story of the path to defeat for the Japanese Empire. It is revisionist crap.

The example I have just used shows how the casualties can be used as a proxy for the logistics.... 21,703 Japanese killed on Iwo Jima, 943,259 military deaths on the Japanese side in the second Sino Japanese war (1937-45). Hmmm - I wonder where the logistics problems were?

Of course the issue of oil and raw materials was at the core of it. Duh - that's what drove the Japanese to attempt to wipe out the US Pacific fleet - the oil embargo that Washington placed on them.

Another wiki quote ...



In 1941, the Imperial Japanese Army had 51 divisions and various special-purpose artillery, cavalry, anti-aircraft and armored units with a total of 1,700,000 men. At the beginning of the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War) most of the Japanese Army was stationed in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China). However, from 1942 soldiers were sent to Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong) (23rd Army), the Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines) (14th Army), Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand) (15th Army), Burma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma) (15th Army), Dutch East Indies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies) (16th Army) and Malaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Malaya) (25th Army). By 1945, there were 5.5 million men in the Imperial Japanese Army.

The Japanese Army performed well in the early stages of the war.
After 1943 they suffered from a shortage of supplies, especially food, heavy weapons, guns, tanks and aircraft, which was worsened by a long-standing and severe rivalry with the Imperial Japanese Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy). It was affected even more by submarine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_submarines_in_the_Pacific_War) interdiction of supplies and losses to IJA shipping. The supply situation was so bad, large numbers of fighter aircraft became unserviceable for lack of spare parts[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#cite_note-1) and medicines were in such short supply, "as many as two-thirds of Japan's total military deaths resulted from illness or starvation."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#cite_note-2)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#Conflict_with_China

So - in 4 years, they tripled the number of men in their army ... hmm, I wonder if that gave them any supply problems? ...and maybe 5% of them at the most were in the islands. Where were they fighting again? Why were they in China? Resources, of course.

btw Bob its the Ledo Road I believe... and Churchill never relied on it as a significant contributor to the victory. I did read something the other day about the campaign that was being prepared in China when the war was fortunately ended by the entry of the Soviets and the Bombs... but I can't find it just at the moment - it involved a significant Chinese push - another 400,000 troops - but that's just tactics, or is logistics?

Let's not overlook the Ruskies again...

On February 3, 1945, the Soviet Union agreed with Roosevelt to enter the Pacific conflict. It promised to act 90 days after the war ended in Europe and did so exactly on schedule on August 9, by invading Manchuria. A battle-hardened, one million-strong Soviet force, transferred from Europe attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria and quickly defeated the Japanese Kantōgun (Kwantung Army group).

That little effort played as much a part as the Bombs according to some commentators...

Back to my original premise - the war was fought (and won) in Russia and China. Thats where the casualties occurred - because that's where the troops were, and guess where the logistics were... Yes, the US submarine effort played a significant part - but it only really got going in 1944, yes the allied bombing of Germany played a significant part.... but the hard grind was going on in Russia and China - and those two theatres caused the problems that Germany and Japan had no hope of overcoming.

Robert L E
03-07-2009, 07:00 PM
I find it rather amusing that there are people here who think the western front was a side show. Well, when you consider sheer volume of men and materiel, you are right. But it is far more significant than some would let on, as was the allied bombing campaign. [ This tactic is not a war crime btw, it is merely the way the war was prosecuted. They couldn't use precision bombing, the technology wasn't there. More than that, it was accepted doctrine by both sides to try to break the will of the other guys civilian population through massive bombing of civilian centers. ] It should also be pointed out, that the threat of invasion from the west and the efforts of the RAF, RCAF, [ yes primarily at night ] and the 8th Air Force, tied up valuables resources that very well could have cast the eastern war far differently had they been available. Hitler was forced to commit tens of thousands of men to anti aircraft batteries to protect the homeland that very easily could have been employed in a devastating way to anti tank units on the eastern front. The primary weapon was the 88mm antieverything gun. there where half a million civilians working in between raids repairing bomb damage that could not be put to work in the war factories, and untold millions of tons of concrete and reinforcement, that went into flak towers, and other anti aircraft emplacements that might otherwise been used as pill boxes, strong points and anti tank obstacles against stalin. Consider as well the massive effort that went into the atlantic wall and how those resources might have been employed against Russia had there been no threat of invasion? So while it seems to be fashionable to downplay the role of the west in the outcome of world war two, it simply isn't accurate. Stalin wasn't begging for a western front for nothing.

Quite right.

While the Germans may have grounded some planes for a lack of fuel, the big problem for them at the end of the war was a lack of pilots. The British, Americans and Russians were all very good at killing German pilots and all were better at training new pilots to boot. I've read or heard (somewhere that I believed at the time) that the Germans lost ten pilots for every bomber shot down (against Americans). The problem in replacing people had a mathematical element to it for Germany. There just were not enough Germans to sustain the losses. The Germans never did have a shortage of aluminum to construct planes with though. Plenty of aluminum just fell out of the sky.


Bob

Lew Barrett
03-07-2009, 07:36 PM
Bless 'em all!
Bless 'em all!
The long and the short and the tall;
Bless all the sergeants and WO ones,
Bless all the corp'rals and their blink-in sons,
`cause we're saying good-bye to them all
As back to their billets they crawl,
You'll get no promotion
This side of the ocean,
So cheer up, my lads,
Bless 'em all!
Nobody knows what a twirp you've been,
So cheer up, my lads,
Bless 'em all!

Every damn mother's son! Russian, British, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi, Indian, and the companies that forged their arms and boiled up their oil. Ford and GM made money building arms for both sides, by the way.

Paul Pless
03-07-2009, 09:19 PM
quite the gem here:rolleyes:
On February 3, 1945, the Soviet Union agreed with Roosevelt to enter the Pacific conflict. It promised to act 90 days after the war ended in Europe and did so exactly on schedule on August 9, by invading Manchuria. A battle-hardened, one million-strong Soviet force, transferred from Europe attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria and quickly defeated the Japanese Kantōgun (Kwantung Army group).

That little effort played as much a part as the Bombs according to some commentators...

paladin
03-07-2009, 09:24 PM
In Bigfellas earlier post that weenie looks to be weilding a bolo mauser.....I brought a captured one back from Vietnam, smoothbored barrel, and had been modified to fire .45ACP ammo. Uncle Ho had tons of ammo from WWII that we gave him, and lots of wepons left over from the Chinese that were used against the Japanese....quite an accurate weapon for what it is...and I have another with the selective fire lever that is chambered for the 9mm parabellum as they didn't have tooling for the Mauser round.

Robert L E
03-07-2009, 10:16 PM
Finally, a glimmer of hope someone here understands what's missing in these interesting but woefully shallow revisionist theories. Namely, a solid grounding in the various official and contemporary histories and a basic understanding of conventional war.

While it may be fun to read this revisionist stuff slanted to a particular political view and regurgitate its data to impress the troops, it's somewhat laughable to consider that not once here as anyone except John even considered the basics, like these few examples:

....that the short straw in both peace and war for both Germany and Japan was that the oil and many of the raw materials they depended on was elsewhere.

....that attrition alone is never decisive without also breaking political will, which didn't occur until Hitler's death in Berlin and Hiroshima in Japan. Both of which required huge and multiple offensive campaigns only possible through a massive logistical tail that began in forest, field and mine and proceeded through transport, processing, manufacturing, packaging, organizing and further transport and distribution several thousand miles forward.

....that China never had the war materials to mount an effective offense necessary to decisively oust Japan from China....let alone defeat her globally....even once we opened the Lido Road. The tonnage required was simply too great for one resupply route.

....that T-34 and other Soviet production was impressive, but each T-34 required a minimum of two, 2 1/2-Ton trucks to serve it, among other assets. Assets provided in no small part by the US and Allied Merchant Marine. It's no coincidence that even to this day Russian trucks tend to look like 1942 Studebakers.

....that "What-iffing" scenarios based on hypothetical changes to circumstance are more akin to conspiracy theory nonsense than anything useful. The absence of any major player....especially the logistics juggernaut provided by North America.... would have as a minimum drawn out the war markedly, and perhaps even irreparably.

Another excellent post. I think the trucks that we sent the Russians were the most of the materials they got from us.

The Russians had great tanks for the day.

Bob

The Bigfella
03-07-2009, 11:07 PM
In Bigfellas earlier post that weenie looks to be weilding a bolo mauser.....I brought a captured one back from Vietnam, smoothbored barrel, and had been modified to fire .45ACP ammo. Uncle Ho had tons of ammo from WWII that we gave him, and lots of wepons left over from the Chinese that were used against the Japanese....quite an accurate weapon for what it is...and I have another with the selective fire lever that is chambered for the 9mm parabellum as they didn't have tooling for the Mauser round.

Yep - China was Germany's largest export market for arms up until 1938, when Germany reneged on a deal to equip 30 Divisions, because the Germans decided to team up with Japan against the Ruskies. Not only were the Chinese sporting Mausers, but also German helmets and gas masks, etc. etc.



Chinese weapons were mainly produced in the Hanyang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyang_Arsenal) and Guangdong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong) arsenals. However, for most of the German-trained divisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-trained_division), the standard firearms were German-made 7.92 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_Mauser) Gewehr 98 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewehr_98) and Karabiner 98k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k). A local variant of the 98k style rifles were often called the "Chiang Kai-shek rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_rifle)" a Chinese copy from the Mauser Standard Modell. Another rifle they used was Hanyang 88 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyang_88). The standard light machine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_machine_gun) was a local copy of the Czech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) 7.92 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_Mauser) Brno ZB26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno_ZB26). There were also Belgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) and French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) LMGs. Surprisingly, the NRA did not purchase any of the famous Maschinengewehr 34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinengewehr_34)s from Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), but did produce their own copies of them. On average in these divisions, there was one machine gun set for each platoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon). Heavy machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_machine_gun) were mainly locally-made 1924 water-cooled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-cooled) Maxim guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun), from German blueprints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint). On average every battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion) would get one HMG. The standard sidearm was the 7.63 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_mm_caliber) Mauser M1932 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_C96) semi-automatic pistol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol)
Some divisions were equipped with 37 mm PaK 35/36 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaK_35/36) anti-tank guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_gun), and/or mortars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)) from Oerlikon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon), Madsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen), and Solothurn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solothurn). Each infantry division had 6 French Brandt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt) 81 mm mortars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun) and 6 Solothurn 20 mm autocannons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon). Some independent brigades and artillery regiments were equipped with Bofors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors) 72 mm L/14, or Krupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp) 72 mm L/29 mountain guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_guns). They were 24 Rheinmetall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall) 150 mm L/32 sFH 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18) howitzers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer) (bought in 1934) and 24 Krupp 150 mm L/30 sFH 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18) howitzers (bought in 1936).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

Oops - no American materiel...

Interesting to note that of the $11.3 billion in materiel sent to the Soviets (call it maybe $150 billion in current dollar terms - at a guess), a lot was locomotives (1,981 of them), aircraft - equivalent to 14% of Soviet production and as Bob pointed out - lots of trucks, to the extent that 2/3 of the Ruskies trucks by the end of the war were US-built - particularly 3/4 ton Dodge and 2 1/2 ton Studies. The Ruskies built lots of tanks, planes and other armaments and supplied 34 million combatants to do the fighting... Which means of course, that the US supplied one truck to about every couple of hundred Ruskies.

Yes the materiel helped. The Ruskies did the work. Stop trying to rewrite history....

johnw
03-07-2009, 11:22 PM
John and Bob raise interesting points about raw materials and logistics, which are the underlying points to where the war was won. I have used - and consistently said - that casualties provide a proxy for where the action was.

It stands to reason that if there were only 23,000 Japanese troops on Iwo Jima - and 200 times as many as that in the Chinese theatre, then the logistics issues weren't with the ships delivering supplies to Iwo Jima - were they? Yet, in that quote I provided above (post 110) - not a single mention of anything beyond the US campaigns in the total story of the path to defeat for the Japanese Empire. It is revisionist crap.

The example I have just used shows how the casualties can be used as a proxy for the logistics.... 21,703 Japanese killed on Iwo Jima, 943,259 military deaths on the Japanese side in the second Sino Japanese war (1937-45). Hmmm - I wonder where the logistics problems were?

Of course the issue of oil and raw materials was at the core of it. Duh - that's what drove the Japanese to attempt to wipe out the US Pacific fleet - the oil embargo that Washington placed on them.

Another wiki quote ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#Conflict_with_China

So - in 4 years, they tripled the number of men in their army ... hmm, I wonder if that gave them any supply problems? ...and maybe 5% of them at the most were in the islands. Where were they fighting again? Why were they in China? Resources, of course.

btw Bob its the Ledo Road I believe... and Churchill never relied on it as a significant contributor to the victory. I did read something the other day about the campaign that was being prepared in China when the war was fortunately ended by the entry of the Soviets and the Bombs... but I can't find it just at the moment - it involved a significant Chinese push - another 400,000 troops - but that's just tactics, or is logistics?

Let's not overlook the Ruskies again...

On February 3, 1945, the Soviet Union agreed with Roosevelt to enter the Pacific conflict. It promised to act 90 days after the war ended in Europe and did so exactly on schedule on August 9, by invading Manchuria. A battle-hardened, one million-strong Soviet force, transferred from Europe attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria and quickly defeated the Japanese Kantōgun (Kwantung Army group).

That little effort played as much a part as the Bombs according to some commentators...

Back to my original premise - the war was fought (and won) in Russia and China. Thats where the casualties occurred - because that's where the troops were, and guess where the logistics were... Yes, the US submarine effort played a significant part - but it only really got going in 1944, yes the allied bombing of Germany played a significant part.... but the hard grind was going on in Russia and China - and those two theatres caused the problems that Germany and Japan had no hope of overcoming.

More to the point, what caused the logistics problem? The Chinese hadn't managed to interrupt the Japanese supply lines in 1937-42. That's why they had to keep throwing men at the Japanese. Part of the idea of the Japanese invading southeast Asia was to get some oil fields. How was that oil to be transported where it was needed? By sea. It didn't take us long to start cutting their supply lines once we were in the war, and the dynamic of the war changed because of that.

Yes, when I was in school in the '70s, people talked about the Russians joining the war as an alternative explanation for the Japanese surrender.

Perhaps that would have got them to surrender. We don't know, because once they got a look at the devastation caused by atom bombs, they surrendered. I'm inclined to think that someone would have had to invade the Japanese mainland if not for the bombs. Our war planners anticipated something like 98 percent casualties for the first wave to hit the beach. The Russians would have had a hard time invading the Japanese mainland, because they didn't have much of a navy. Nor did they need one to fight the Germans.

I'm sure the Russians feel they defeated the Germans, and they did. So did we. I'm sure Chinese children learn that China won their war with Japan. And they did, and so did we.

But to say the people who really won the war were the ones who took the greatest casualties makes no sense to me. War is not pest control, and you don't win it by killing off the enemy. You achieve your war aims by making it too hard for your enemy to continue. Cutting off their fuel is one of the best ways to do this, and we succeeded in doing this to the Germans and Japanese.

Which makes it odd that we've spent so little time thinking about our own fuel logistics these days.

johnw
03-07-2009, 11:38 PM
Yep - China was Germany's largest export market for arms up until 1938, when Germany reneged on a deal to equip 30 Divisions, because the Germans decided to team up with Japan against the Ruskies. Not only were the Chinese sporting Mausers, but also German helmets and gas masks, etc. etc.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

Oops - no American materiel...

Interesting to note that of the $11.3 billion in materiel sent to the Soviets (call it maybe $150 billion in current dollar terms - at a guess), a lot was locomotives (1,981 of them), aircraft - equivalent to 14% of Soviet production and as Bob pointed out - lots of trucks, to the extent that 2/3 of the Ruskies trucks by the end of the war were US-built - particularly 3/4 ton Dodge and 2 1/2 ton Studies. The Ruskies built lots of tanks, planes and other armaments and supplied 34 million combatants to do the fighting... Which means of course, that the US supplied one truck to about every couple of hundred Ruskies.

Yes the materiel helped. The Ruskies did the work. Stop trying to rewrite history....

Ah, so your point in saying "GM did not win the war" was that Dodge and Studebaker did? If 2/3 of the Russian trucks were American made, sounds like their logistics would have been a mess without them. Of course, they could have used horses...

I'd suggest you take your own advice and stop trying to rewrite history. I recognize the hyperbole in someone making the claim that "GM won the war," but the larger point that Detroit manufacturers contributed greatly to its outcome is true. And keep in mind, they weren't just building trucks, they were building tanks, fighters and bombers as well. A lot of that bombing that kept the Germans from having the materiel to fight was done in aircraft built by auto manufacturers.

Of course, every country teaches history from their own point of view. It is perhaps the most politically fraught field of intellectual endeavor. I doubt Russian kids have ever learned much about the American materiel that helped them in WWII. Most American kids will learn a version of history that glorifies the efforts of Americans and ignores many of the efforts of other countries.

But to minimize the contribution of the American manufacturers seems like, well, rewriting history.

George Jung
03-07-2009, 11:42 PM
Who made that quote "you don't win the war by dying for your country; you win by making the enemy die for his country."

seanz
03-07-2009, 11:44 PM
Patton

WX
03-08-2009, 12:03 AM
The one thing that stopped us from halting the Japs early on the Kokoda Track was getting men and supplies over an horrendous supply line. And the one thing that helped us beat him back to his beach head was his over extended supply line.

Tinman
03-08-2009, 12:52 AM
Ah, so your point in saying "GM did not win the war" was that Dodge and Studebaker did? If 2/3 of the Russian trucks were American made, sounds like their logistics would have been a mess without them. Of course, they could have used horses...

I'd suggest you take your own advice and stop trying to rewrite history. I recognize the hyperbole in someone making the claim that "GM won the war," but the larger point that Detroit manufacturers contributed greatly to its outcome is true. And keep in mind, they weren't just building trucks, they were building tanks, fighters and bombers as well. A lot of that bombing that kept the Germans from having the materiel to fight was done in aircraft built by auto manufacturers.

Of course, every country teaches history from their own point of view. It is perhaps the most politically fraught field of intellectual endeavor. I doubt Russian kids have ever learned much about the American materiel that helped them in WWII. Most American kids will learn a version of history that glorifies the efforts of Americans and ignores many of the efforts of other countries.

But to minimize the contribution of the American manufacturers seems like, well, rewriting history.

You and I don't often agree on things, but in this case we are both singing from the same hymn book especaily concerning NA heavy industry. It wasn't called the arsenal of democracy for nothing. Revising history to suit modern sensibilities serves no one well and everyone poorly.

pila
03-08-2009, 01:13 AM
I was in my teens during that war, and folks in those early war years were not positive we could win, so it's great to know that many countries, together, got the job done. Many have a national pride, which is the way it should be. These debates are never gonna stop anyway, and are interesting:)

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 01:20 AM
Ah, so your point in saying "GM did not win the war" was that Dodge and Studebaker did? If 2/3 of the Russian trucks were American made, sounds like their logistics would have been a mess without them. Of course, they could have used horses...

I'd suggest you take your own advice and stop trying to rewrite history. I recognize the hyperbole in someone making the claim that "GM won the war," but the larger point that Detroit manufacturers contributed greatly to its outcome is true. And keep in mind, they weren't just building trucks, they were building tanks, fighters and bombers as well. A lot of that bombing that kept the Germans from having the materiel to fight was done in aircraft built by auto manufacturers.

Of course, every country teaches history from their own point of view. It is perhaps the most politically fraught field of intellectual endeavor. I doubt Russian kids have ever learned much about the American materiel that helped them in WWII. Most American kids will learn a version of history that glorifies the efforts of Americans and ignores many of the efforts of other countries.

But to minimize the contribution of the American manufacturers seems like, well, rewriting history.

You are missing the point John.

In total, it was about 10% of Soviet materiel that was obtained from the US. I've always said it was valuable - but it didn't win the war - but of course, it helped.

The Ruskies didn't need American tanks, rifles, artillery or to a large extent, planes (they built more than 5/6ths of the planes they used, pretty much all the tanks, rifles, etc.) They were able to concentrate heavily on tanks because the US supplied locomotives and trucks - its what being allies is all about.

The Ruskies were already rolling into Poland by the time you guys got there and it was 1944 before US submarine warfare really started to take effect in the Pacific.

Take a look at the impact Stalingrad and Kursk had on the Germans.....

seanz
03-08-2009, 03:32 AM
The Ruskies were already rolling into Poland

Again....
:rolleyes:

Maybe that's why we'd rather talk about the Western front than the Russian campaign.
There is a lot of history (you know what I mean ;)) in the 30s and 40s and some of it is very confusing.

Paul Pless
03-08-2009, 08:42 AM
GM (a good acronym for American industry during the war) didn't win the war, Australians did.> :D

C. Ross
03-08-2009, 08:47 AM
Very funny, Milo!

Actually this is a very interesting thread, with more light and less heat than usual. I've learned a couple of new things. Carry on please...

Phillip Allen
03-08-2009, 08:55 AM
:eek::eek: What !!!!:eek: The strangeness that comes up in this place!


Hey Peter, was my post about the defination of war crime unclear? I'm just trying to catch up


semantics Peter...a crime commited by the ultimate winner stops being a crime at the victory march...not before

johnw
03-08-2009, 01:32 PM
You are missing the point John.

In total, it was about 10% of Soviet materiel that was obtained from the US. I've always said it was valuable - but it didn't win the war - but of course, it helped.

The Ruskies didn't need American tanks, rifles, artillery or to a large extent, planes (they built more than 5/6ths of the planes they used, pretty much all the tanks, rifles, etc.) They were able to concentrate heavily on tanks because the US supplied locomotives and trucks - its what being allies is all about.

The Ruskies were already rolling into Poland by the time you guys got there and it was 1944 before US submarine warfare really started to take effect in the Pacific.

Take a look at the impact Stalingrad and Kursk had on the Germans.....

Well, perhaps they could have won without American built trucks and locomotives. After all, the Germans were using horses.

GM, by the way, built most of America's diesel locomotives, so they probably contributed greatly to Russian logistics.

And as for those bombers that were making it difficult for the Germans to get weapons and fuel to the eastern front, a lot of those were made by automobile manufacturers as well:


http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/WWII_Industry/Aero7.htm

After much effort, aircraft production largely succeeded in shifting from the "job shop," where parts were built in batches, to assembly line production. The Ford Willow Run plant near Detroit, Michigan, was the largest and most successful example. Eventually, the enormous plant reached remarkable levels of production, turning out 5,476 B-24 bombers in 1944-45. In 1944, Willow Run alone produced 92 million pounds of airframe weight—more than half of Germany's total annual production and nearly equal to Japan's 12-month total.

Anyway, you're making progress. You've gone from denying the importance of American industry to claiming you've "always" said it was valuable.

By the way, those B-24s Ford was building helped bomb the Romanian oil refineries that supplied about a third of Germany's oil supplies. Think the oil shortage helped the Russians finally capture those oil refineries?

I'm not missing your point. I'm pointing out that overstated your case. The Russians paid a terrible price in the Great Patriotic War, and deserve more credit than they are commonly given, but that doesn't mean the contributions by American manufacturing were negligible.

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 07:00 PM
Well, perhaps they could have won without American built trucks and locomotives. After all, the Germans were using horses.

GM, by the way, built most of America's diesel locomotives, so they probably contributed greatly to Russian logistics.

And as for those bombers that were making it difficult for the Germans to get weapons and fuel to the eastern front, a lot of those were made by automobile manufacturers as well:


Anyway, you're making progress. You've gone from denying the importance of American industry to claiming you've "always" said it was valuable.

By the way, those B-24s Ford was building helped bomb the Romanian oil refineries that supplied about a third of Germany's oil supplies. Think the oil shortage helped the Russians finally capture those oil refineries?

I'm not missing your point. I'm pointing out that overstated your case. The Russians paid a terrible price in the Great Patriotic War, and deserve more credit than they are commonly given, but that doesn't mean the contributions by American manufacturing were negligible.

I don't think I overstated my case -

I said that the war was won in Russia and China. It was. Its a simplification, but its valid enough. The vast Allied forces efforts in 1944 finished off the remaining Axis partners - but they had already been whipped and it was just a matter of time until they crumbled.

(saying "China" is a bit naughty - as a lot of the action took place in Burma - with many more Japanese soldiers dieing there in 1944 than in the whole of the Pacific Islands campaign)

Given this myth about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign keeps coming up, I might go there next. Yes - it did hurt the Germans - but not to the extent that the loss of men and materiel at the Eastern Front did...

.. as for "You've gone from denying the importance of American industry to claiming you've "always" said it was valuable." I've never denied that it was valuable. I denied that GM won the war. I have refuted claims on previous threads that battles like Guadalcanal, D Day and the like were the major battles of the war. I've pointed out what an idiot Macarthur was. I've also pointed out how brilliant some of the American approaches were.

I've mentioned a couple of times before about an uncle of mine - who was a Mosquito pilot - who did a one week course on Rolls Royce Merlin engines at the factory. He pointed out that when a batch of engines was produced they made a couple of extra crankshafts as spares for those engines (I haven't got his autobiography here at present, so can't quote the exact numbers) - something like 2 for every 6 engines. When RR sent the plans for the Merlin to the US - so that Packard could build a decent engine for the Mustang - which just didn't work with the Allison engine... they redesigned the process so that any crankshaft would fit any engine. Brilliant engineering.

Things like that have a major bearing on effectiveness during a war. The Daimler Benz engines in the Messchersmitts is another example - they took twice the effort/cost to build that a Merlin did. That was a bigger cost to the German war effort than the bombing campaign. (I'll come back to the bombing later.... in another post)

The decision by the Ruskies to "buy" US locomotives, rather than build them was an easy one. They had a lot of their own existing locos, but instead of building new ones - they were using the same guage track as the standard in the US - so it was easy to just "buy" them. What I find hard to understand is how the goodwill that must have existed between the US and the Ruskies at the end of WW2 was so easily destroyed. Perhaps it was due to the likes of the brain-damaged Patton and a few industrialists who saw profit in conflict?

Interestingly, I found a reference to the change in gold reserves of several countries during the war...

United States: increased by 1,422,000,000,000 pounds
Argentina: + 230,000,000,000 pounds
Sth Africa: + 174,000,000,000 pounds
Switzerland: + 160,000,000,000 pounds

These nations lost

France: decreased by 335,000,000,000 pounds.
Netherlands: - 182,000,000,000 pounds
Japan: - 63,000,000,000 pounds
Canada: - 46,000,000,000 pounds
Italy: - 25,000,000,000 pounds
UK: - 5,000,000,000 pounds

I'm assuming that reference to pounds is Sterling, not weight.

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 07:18 PM
Oh yeah - soviet locomotive numbers?

Sorry - I haven't found the pre-war numbers, but here's a CIA report on numbers in 1947 - and I'm willing to bet that it isn't too far removed from the dark days of 1943 - 44 (they only produced 1,100 or so in the couple of years after the war). Yep, the Ruskies had 26,000 steam locomotives in 1947. So, the 1,981 they got from the US was about 1 in 12 of their wartime stock. Yes - they helped - but they didn't win the war...

In 1935, the Ruskies produced 1,500 locos. In the immediate post-war years, they were still transporting 85% of everything by rail.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp

btw - ever seen a WW2 Ruskie "road" after the spring rains? Horse carts did better than trucks in many cases - and that's why their rail system was so important.

seanz
03-08-2009, 07:40 PM
In 1935, the Ruskies produced 1,500 locos. In the immediate post-war years, they were still transporting 85% of everything by rail.

Ah....sigh........a triumph for the proleteriat.


It's what we need now comrade, some good central planning and a decent public transport system.
:D

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 07:54 PM
Didn't GM buy up the public transport system in LA and dismantle it?

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 08:15 PM
Here's a good read - an article by an American Ace discussing the merits of the 109 and 190

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/breed.html

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 09:13 PM
OK - back to bombing...

this from a US Army War Center paper on the bombing effectiveness...

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A420055&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf




US bombing effectiveness was disappointing due to ineffectual bomb loads and fighter attacks. Tables of bomb effectiveness developed in peacetime were inaccurate which consistently threw off planners and resulted in bomb loads too small for their target. German fighters were exacting heavy losses and disrupting bomb runs. Losses sustained in two attacks on Schweinfurt ball-bearing plants had far-reaching implications on tactics (August 17: 36 of 200 planes lost, October 14: 62 lost, 138 damaged [many beyond repair] out of 228). In response, deep penetrations without escort, of which these were among the earliest, were immediately suspended and combat box formations adopted.


Experience proved this tactic to be 67% less effective than normal bomb run methods. Only the advent of long-range P-47 and P-51 escort fighters in November (1943) solved the German fighter problem.65, 66



The reality was that bugger all bombs were being dropped in Germany until the second half of 1944.


Take a look at this timeline of the Eastern Front - and you will see that from the start of 1942, the Russians were crushing the Axis forces....


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


The first cited paper's conclusion includes ...




German industry proved to be more resilient to attack than perceived. German leadership never fully mobilized war production which resulted in excess capacity. Although buildings were heavily damaged, plant equipment was surprisingly resilient to attack. The German people kept
going to work and continued to create ingenious ways to work around damage despite their growing discontent over the war. Industrial production never really slowed until late 1944.



What that paper doesn't include is the impact of the Soviet victories on the German war machine. The loss of so many experienced pilots and aircraft, for example - with implications when the Western Front opened.


(Incidentally, I know a former Luftwaffe pilot who scored a double victory against Soviet fighters without firing a shot ... he took an unarmed Bf109 up over the airfield for a quick test flight and was bounced - he headed for cloud cover to escape and the two chasing Ruskies collided in the clouds... but I digress)


So - speaking of the Eastern front - and of re-writing history, lets get things into perspective. Around the same time as D-Day and Operation Overlord were getting under way, there's a battle happening in the East that most here have probably never heard of...



This action resulted in the almost complete destruction of the German Army Group Centre and three of its component armies: Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army. The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II".

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

Yep - Operation Bagration - but you already knew of it, didn't you?

The Ruskies had rolled into Eastern Poland and killed another 300,000 German troops in this little action. Not civilians in Dresden or Cologne or Tokyo - but German troops. Yep - troops - 8% of all German troop deaths in WW2 - but did you really ever hear about it?

Nah - that wouldn't win a war would it? Killing the enemy's troops? Of course it wouldn't - we all know that pretending to have knocked out factories (which weren't knocked out btw - hell, they weren't even bothering to run a second shift in them, let alone a third - because they didn't have the troops left to do anything with the output). ;)

The Bigfella
03-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Gee - I hadn't finished reading the wiki article on Operation Bagration when I posted that. Try this little bit...



The German army never recovered from the materiel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiel) and manpower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manpower) losses sustained during this time, having lost about a quarter of its Eastern Front manpower, similar to the percentage lost at Stalingrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) (about 20 full divisions). These losses included many experienced troops, NCOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unteroffizier) and other officers, which at this stage of the war the Wehrmacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht) could not replace. The operation was also notable for the number of German generals lost: 9 were killed, including 2 corps commanders; 22 captured, including 4 corps commanders; Major-General Hahn, commander of 197th Infantry Division disappeared on 24 June (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_24), while Lieutenant-Generals Zutavern and Philipp of the 18th Panzergrenadier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Panzergrenadier_Division) and 134th Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=134th_Infantry_Division_(Germany)&action=edit&redlink=1) Divisions committed suicide.
Overall, the near-total annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. According to Steven Zaloga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaloga), German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured (overall casualties at 670,000); Soviet losses were also substantial, with 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration#cite_note-Zaloga71-13)

johnw
03-09-2009, 12:54 AM
I don't think I overstated my case -

I said that the war was won in Russia and China. It was. Its a simplification, but its valid enough. The vast Allied forces efforts in 1944 finished off the remaining Axis partners - but they had already been whipped and it was just a matter of time until they crumbled.

(saying "China" is a bit naughty - as a lot of the action took place in Burma - with many more Japanese soldiers dieing there in 1944 than in the whole of the Pacific Islands campaign)

Given this myth about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign keeps coming up, I might go there next. Yes - it did hurt the Germans - but not to the extent that the loss of men and materiel at the Eastern Front did...

.. as for "You've gone from denying the importance of American industry to claiming you've "always" said it was valuable." I've never denied that it was valuable. I denied that GM won the war. I have refuted claims on previous threads that battles like Guadalcanal, D Day and the like were the major battles of the war. I've pointed out what an idiot Macarthur was. I've also pointed out how brilliant some of the American approaches were.

I've mentioned a couple of times before about an uncle of mine - who was a Mosquito pilot - who did a one week course on Rolls Royce Merlin engines at the factory. He pointed out that when a batch of engines was produced they made a couple of extra crankshafts as spares for those engines (I haven't got his autobiography here at present, so can't quote the exact numbers) - something like 2 for every 6 engines. When RR sent the plans for the Merlin to the US - so that Packard could build a decent engine for the Mustang - which just didn't work with the Allison engine... they redesigned the process so that any crankshaft would fit any engine. Brilliant engineering.

Things like that have a major bearing on effectiveness during a war. The Daimler Benz engines in the Messchersmitts is another example - they took twice the effort/cost to build that a Merlin did. That was a bigger cost to the German war effort than the bombing campaign. (I'll come back to the bombing later.... in another post)

The decision by the Ruskies to "buy" US locomotives, rather than build them was an easy one. They had a lot of their own existing locos, but instead of building new ones - they were using the same guage track as the standard in the US - so it was easy to just "buy" them. What I find hard to understand is how the goodwill that must have existed between the US and the Ruskies at the end of WW2 was so easily destroyed. Perhaps it was due to the likes of the brain-damaged Patton and a few industrialists who saw profit in conflict?

Interestingly, I found a reference to the change in gold reserves of several countries during the war...

United States: increased by 1,422,000,000,000 pounds
Argentina: + 230,000,000,000 pounds
Sth Africa: + 174,000,000,000 pounds
Switzerland: + 160,000,000,000 pounds

These nations lost

France: decreased by 335,000,000,000 pounds.
Netherlands: - 182,000,000,000 pounds
Japan: - 63,000,000,000 pounds
Canada: - 46,000,000,000 pounds
Italy: - 25,000,000,000 pounds
UK: - 5,000,000,000 pounds

I'm assuming that reference to pounds is Sterling, not weight.

Hard to believe anyone would build crankshafts that were unique to the engine. Interchangeable parts were developed pretty early so that guns could be repaired at the front. The concept was a military one that got adopted by civilian industry.

Look, you're clearly responding to a lot of claims I haven't made. I didn't see the previous thread, so I don't know what happened there. When I studied the world wars, I was told that for Germany, in WW I 80% of the fighting was on the French front, and in WW II 80% was on the Russian front. Although we didn't study the Great Patriotic War in detail, we were not led to believe it was a minor sideshow. I think your claims that people believe that is a straw man. Or maybe I'm naive, and others were educated differently than me.

Perhaps that's why you think it's necessary to go to such lengths to denigrate the contributions of American (and allied) industry.

I will say it's not just a little naughty to say China when you mean Burma. The Chinese army didn't fight the Japanese in Burma. Wasn't that the Brits, the Aussies, and some enzeders?

By the way, they used the DUKWs in Burma -- designed by Sparkman & Stephens and some General Motors engineers. It was Rod Stephens' only design, and more were built than all the other S&S designs put together.

There's a very good memoir on the Burma campaign by George MacDonald Fraser, titled "Quartered Safe Out Here," by the way. He's the guy that wrote the Flashman books.

I enjoyed your link on the 109 and 190. Did you know that in the late 1940s the air forces of Egypt and Israel both had Me 109s and Spitfires? Both of them seem to have junked the 109s as soon as they could.

The Bigfella
03-09-2009, 02:06 AM
Perhaps that's why you think it's necessary to go to such lengths to denigrate the contributions of American (and allied) industry


Umm - where did I do that? Quite the contrary - the efforts of American and Allied Industry were fabulous - but that wasn't the issue. What I did do was simply dispute the claim that GM won the war. I pointed out that the war was won by the Russians and the Chinese more than anyone else.

As for denigration, I've certainly denigrated Macarthur - which is a whole different issue, and its not too hard for me to find material to support my position on him.

As for the Burma thing - more correctly called the CBI - China, Burma, India threatre - there were a lot of Brits, Indian and Chinese troops in there - not many Aussies or Kiwis - if any. The US was there, under Stilwell - who was organising the Lend Lease supplies to China - most of which was taken over the Hump by air (and most of which went to the Flying tigers btw) - but with less than 3,000 ground troops in his Marauder Battalions. The majority of his force was building the Ledo Road

A couple of nice quotes from the Wiki article on Stilwell...



After fighting and resisting the Japanese for five years, many in the Nationalist government felt that it was time for the Allies to assume a greater burden in fighting the war....

Stilwell argued that the CBI was the only area at that time where the possibility existed for the Allies of engaging large numbers of troops against their common enemy, Japan....

The (Ledo) road was built by 15,000 American soldiers (60% of whom were African-Americans) and 35,000 local workers at a cost of US$150 Million. 1,100 Americans died during the construction, as well as many more locals...


I saw something the other day on the CBI theatre - pointing out how the Japanese were about to get well and truly walloped by the Chinese when the Bombs ended the war. Damned if I can find it again.... Another interesting snippet in the casualty stats was the number of Chinese who were pressed into service in the Japanese army - well over 400,000 died..

WX
03-09-2009, 02:28 AM
Australians did.

Yes we did but we had a bit of help from some other nations I can't remember the name of:D

WX
03-09-2009, 03:09 AM
Actually it's you blokes who are getting defensive about who won the war. You may have built all the trucks and bombed all the factories but it was the Russians and the Chinese that took most of the heat. It was the bods on the ground at the sharp end that ultimately decide who won not the bomber at 40,000 ft, though he surely helped. And that's what it was all about...all those that helped, from the front line soldier to the potato growers, they all did their bit.

The Bigfella
03-09-2009, 03:56 AM
You may have built all the trucks and bombed all the factories


But only 7% of the bombs fell within 1000' of the designated targets....

WX
03-09-2009, 06:17 AM
Target creep had a bit to do with that. The Yanks developed a a wire guided bomb towards the end of the war.The bomb had extended tailfins to ive it some glide capability and a magnesium flare in the tail. The bomb aimer simply kept that in his site, it prove very effective for destroying bridges.

The Bigfella
03-09-2009, 07:18 AM
A few wiki excerpts on that issue Gary..

The United States Government entered the war intending to use strategic daylight precision bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bombing), which was used with mixed success in Europe and never officially abandoned as a policy. But the weather over Germany, particularly in the winter months, often caused primary targets to be obscured by cloud, in such instances the USAAF's secondary targets were often located in city centres and bombed using imprecise bombing methods such as H2X radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2X_radar). For example on 15 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15) 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945) the centre of Dresden was bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#February_14-15) using H2X because the primary target, the synthetic oil plant near Leipzig, was obscured by cloud.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#cite_note-Taylor-392-393-7) When the USAAF anticipated cloudy conditions over the target they frequently used a mix of high explosive and incendiaries bombs that were closer to the RAF city busting mix than that usually used for precision attacks.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#cite_note-Davis-425-504-8) Over Japan, because of the jetstream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetstream), strategic precision bombing proved to be impractical and the United States abandoned the policy in favour of a policy of area bombardment....

On 14 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_14) 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942), Directive No. 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_No._22) was issued to bomber command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers." Factories were no longer targets.
The effects of strategic bombing were very poorly understood at the time and grossly overrated. Particularly in the first two years of the campaign, few understood just how little damage was caused and how rapidly the Germans were able to replace lost production—despite the obvious lessons to be learned from the United Kingdom's own survival of the blitz.
Mid-way through the air war, it slowly began to be realized the campaign was having very little effect. Despite an ever-increasing tonnage of bombs dispatched, the inaccuracy of delivery was such any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes, and even by this standard, as the Butt Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report) made clear many bombs missed.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#cite_note-20) Indeed sometimes in post raid assessment the Germans could not decide which town (not the installation in the town) had been the intended target because the scattering of bomb craters was so wide.....

A very large proportion of the industrial production of the United Kingdom was harnessed to the task of creating a vast fleet of heavy bombers—so much so other vital areas of war production were under-resourced. Until 1944, the effect on German production was remarkably small and raised doubts whether it was wise to divert so much effort – the response being there was no where else the effort could have been applied to greater effect.....

In Europe, the American Eighth Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force) conducted its raids in daylight and their heavy bombers carried smaller payloads than British aircraft in part because of their heavier (as needed) defensive armament. USAAF leaders firmly held to the claim of "precision" bombing of military targets for much of the war, and energetically refuted claims that they were simply bombing cities. In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as a railway yard. Conventionally, the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. .[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#cite_note-26)In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000 feet of their aim point....

The attack on oil production, oil refineries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery) and tank farms was, however, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer)'s main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives....

As in Europe, the United States Army Air Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces) (USAAF) tried daylight precision bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bombing). However, it proved to be impossible due to the weather around Japan, as bombs dropped from a great height were tossed about by high winds. General LeMay, commander of XXI Bomber Command, instead switched to mass firebombing night attacks from altitudes of around 7,000 feet (2,100 m) on the major conurbations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation) of Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo), Nagoya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagoya), Osaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka), and Kobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe)....

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

The Bigfella
03-09-2009, 07:29 AM
another wiki quote - this time on the Mosquito bomber...

Despite an initially high loss rate, the Mosquito ended the war with the lowest losses of any aircraft in RAF Bomber Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command) service. Post war, the RAF found that when finally applied to bombing, in terms of useful damage done, the Mosquito had proved 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito#cite_note-30); and they never specified a defensive gun on a bomber thereafter.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Special Luftwaffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe) units (Jagdgruppe 25 and Jagdgruppe 50) were formed to combat the Mosquito attacks, though they were rather unsuccessful and the Luftwaffe considered the Mosquito a superior implementation of their own "Schnellbomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellbomber)" concept

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito#Specifications

As usual, rigid military thinking didn't look properly at what they could do with this fabulous tool. They could take the same bomb load to Berlin on two engines, with 1/5 the crew of say a B17 - lose less and bomb more effectively - without the need for fighter cover. Duhh. At 1/5 the cost they were doing it with Lancasters....

Ron Williamson
03-09-2009, 11:55 AM
Dominion Plywood,right here.
The building itself is soon to become landfill and the land occupied by a Rexall super drugstore.
It's pretty hard to believe that a Mosquito could carry what a Lancaster could.
R

seanz
03-09-2009, 12:27 PM
As Ian seems to have wandered into China and Burma :) I'll give this book a recommendation (again?).

Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45 written by Barbara Wertheim Tuchman

johnw
03-09-2009, 12:36 PM
Umm - where did I do that? Quite the contrary - the efforts of American and Allied Industry were fabulous - but that wasn't the issue. What I did do was simply dispute the claim that GM won the war. I pointed out that the war was won by the Russians and the Chinese more than anyone else.

As for denigration, I've certainly denigrated Macarthur - which is a whole different issue, and its not too hard for me to find material to support my position on him.

As for the Burma thing - more correctly called the CBI - China, Burma, India threatre - there were a lot of Brits, Indian and Chinese troops in there - not many Aussies or Kiwis - if any. The US was there, under Stilwell - who was organising the Lend Lease supplies to China - most of which was taken over the Hump by air (and most of which went to the Flying tigers btw) - but with less than 3,000 ground troops in his Marauder Battalions. The majority of his force was building the Ledo Road

A couple of nice quotes from the Wiki article on Stilwell...



I saw something the other day on the CBI theatre - pointing out how the Japanese were about to get well and truly walloped by the Chinese when the Bombs ended the war. Damned if I can find it again.... Another interesting snippet in the casualty stats was the number of Chinese who were pressed into service in the Japanese army - well over 400,000 died..

Well, if you didn't mean what I thought you meant, and the efforts of American industry were in your view "fabulous," I'm satisfied.

To say any one industry or institution won the war makes no sense. The Russian army didn't win it without American trucks. GM didn't win it without allied soldiers.

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-09-2009, 01:14 PM
Umm - where did I do that? Quite the contrary - the efforts of American and Allied Industry were fabulous - but that wasn't the issue. What I did do was simply dispute the claim that GM won the war. I pointed out that the war was won by the Russians and the Chinese more than anyone else.

As for denigration, I've certainly denigrated Macarthur - which is a whole different issue, and its not too hard for me to find material to support my position on him.

As for the Burma thing - more correctly called the CBI - China, Burma, India threatre - there were a lot of Brits, Indian and Chinese troops in there - not many Aussies or Kiwis - if any. The US was there, under Stilwell - who was organising the Lend Lease supplies to China - most of which was taken over the Hump by air (and most of which went to the Flying tigers btw) - but with less than 3,000 ground troops in his Marauder Battalions. The majority of his force was building the Ledo Road

A couple of nice quotes from the Wiki article on Stilwell...



I saw something the other day on the CBI theatre - pointing out how the Japanese were about to get well and truly walloped by the Chinese when the Bombs ended the war. Damned if I can find it again.... Another interesting snippet in the casualty stats was the number of Chinese who were pressed into service in the Japanese army - well over 400,000 died..

Most of what we know of the involvement of the US and China in the Burmese Campaign and Stillwell's negotiatioins with Chiang Kai-shek comes from the "Stillwell Diaries". Chang was said to have 300 divisions but his main concern seemed to be saving his manpower and accumulating free armaments for the day he would resume battling Mao's communists.
One of the reasons the American Composite Group took such appauling casualties there was the lack of support by Chinese divisions. Stillwell drove his Americans so hard they sickened and even died from overwork and poor diet plugging holes the Chinese left on the battlefield.
If you want references I can get them. Except for Stillwell, I believe my sources are mostly British.
Your admiration for the Chinese baffles me. They were the worst led, most poorly trained and most severely ill-treated troops of any combatants in the war. A few units did well when some of the better disposed units were given over to complete control and training by Stillwell. He was convinced they would do well if Chiang's influence was removed. That prooved to be the case.

The Bigfella
03-09-2009, 04:35 PM
Your admiration for the Chinese baffles me.


Umm, who says I have any admiration for their efforts - other than you?

Fighting in the CBI theatre took a huge toll on Japanese resources - men and materiel. Far more than their occupation of the Pacific Islands. I fully concur with what you say about the quality of the Chinese efforts - particularly the Nationalists - but the fact remains that the Chinese managed to knock off the vast bulk of the Japanese who became casualties during WW2. I didn't say they did it efficiently - in fact it was an appalling campaign.

Same goes for the Russian efforts on the Eastern front.

By 1942, the Germans had 171 Divisions in the Eastern front and another 25 protecting its flanks. North Africa got up to its high point of 3 Divisions and the Western theatre had 27. That's it - 226 Divisions - of which 12% were in the Western Front.

Over the next two years, by rounding up the grandfathers and pimply-faced boys, they managed to get almost another 50 Divisions together for the final slaughter at the hands of the Russians - but even then, the issue wasn't their factories, it was the idiotic decisions of their leader - and the lack of trained men. The Russians simply overwhelmed them - at a cost of 28 million dead Russians.

Incidentally, my father was left for dead on the battlefield in Greece, but got back through enemy lines and was then captured on Crete in 1941. I'm not saying that the efforts of men like him - or the British or American troops weren't important, but the reality is that these were just relatively minor skirmishes during the war - the big deal was in the USSR. Same in the CBI theatre for Japan.

As a further side-note - Dad and the other Western allies were treated relatively well in captivity (there were abuses and arbitrary executions) especially compare to how the Germans treated the Russians.

WX
03-09-2009, 05:20 PM
Stillwell drove his Americans so hard they sickened and even died from overwork

Not a particularly nice bloke from what I have read.

seafox
03-09-2009, 09:39 PM
it is intresting that much of the evidence for importiance of britian russa and china is in the losses sustained but is it not more importian in the losses inflicted? my reading of the bombing campaine over germany was the american daylight bombs were more effective. the firebombing attacks on such as hamborg and dresdan where both day and night raids complimented each other but when trying to take out spicific targets like the balbearing plant at swinefort it was the american daylight bombers and they destroyed only about 30 percent of the machinery. on the otherhand how much did that hurt production and howmuch did it slow overall production? also the cost compairison of a sherman tank with a german tiger was hugely in favor of the anmerican product.
further I was readding about the bell p39 over half of the production run went to russa where it did great service in ground attack. it should be noted that the american p51 with the allison engine that also p[owered the p 40 neither of which flew all that great but when the rollsroyce merlin was put in the p51 it became a great plane. makes one wonder how the p40 might have been if it to had been up engined with the merlin?
jeff

Kaa
03-09-2009, 09:46 PM
it is intresting that much of the evidence for importiance of britian russa and china is in the losses sustained but is it not more importian in the losses inflicted?

Paragraphs are your friend.

But here's the data for the losses suffered by the Germans:


Dr. Rűdiger Overmans of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_Military_History_Research_Offi ce) has provided a reassessment of German military war dead based on a statistical analysis of German military personnel records.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#fn_RudOver). Overmans concluded that these losses were 5,318,0000.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#fn_RudOver). , not including the deaths of 215,000 Soviet citizens conscripted by Germany [7,278] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#fn_Kirosheev). German losses were previously estimated at 4.5 million[31,111-129] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#fn_GS), Overmans includes 344,000 deaths that were previously listed as civilian losses in eastern Europe and 230,000 as paramilitary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary), Volkssturm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm) and police forces fighting with the regular forces. Overmans lists the following losses- Africa 16,066 ; the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans) 103,693 ; Northern Europe 30,165 ; Western Europe until 12/31/44- 339,957 ; Italy 150,660; against the U.S.S.R. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.S.R.) until 12/31/44- 2,742,909 ; final battles in Germany during 1945-1,230,045 ; other (including air war in Germany & at sea) 245,561 ; confirmed deaths of POWs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWs) in captivity 459,475 (including 363,000 in Soviet captivity)- Grand Total 5.318 million. Overmans lists losses of 4,456,000 from pre-war Germany, 261,000 from Austria, 534,000 ethnic Germans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Germans) from eastern Europe, 30,000 French and 37,000 volunteers from western Europe. Included in the total of 5.3 Million war dead are 2.0 million men listed as missing in action or unaccounted for after the war. (the usual -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

I think it's pretty clear the Russians were doing most of the killing by far.

Kaa

WX
03-09-2009, 10:07 PM
makes one wonder how the p40 might have been if it to had been up engined with the merlin?
P40F
Comparing the Allison powered P-40E with the Merlin powered P-40F reveals that below 15,000 ft. they perform pretty much the same. The F had a higher service ceiling (34,400 ft. vs. 29,000 ft.) and a better rate of climb, but that's about it. The F used the two-stage supercharged Packard built V-1650-1. Since the U.S.A.A.F. considered the P-40 primarily a low altitude fighter/bomber, and the Merlin was needed for the Mustang, most subsequent P-40's went back to the Allison. And, many of the Merlin powered P-40F and L models when removed from front line service were re-engined with V-1710's and used were as advanced trainers designated the P-40R.

WX
03-09-2009, 10:32 PM
it is intresting that much of the evidence for importiance of britian russa and china is in the losses sustained but is it not more importian in the losses inflicted?
Generally yes, at the battle of Kursk the Russians fielded 3 armies against the German 1.
The shear scale of operations on the Eastern Front is staggering. The Russians accounted for something like 75% of all German casualties, the Western Front the other 25%. It can honestly be said that without the Eastern front D-Day would have remained a dream, it would not have been possible. No Western country would have accepted the looses sustained by the Russians. For example out of 5 million Russian POWs, 4 million died in captivity.

The Bigfella
03-09-2009, 10:37 PM
Interesting read here about the Tiger v the Sherman.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/strategy-tactics/22559-tiger-vs-sherman-quality-vs-quantity.html

It includes the point that the Germans were trying to get to Baku to secure fuel - but ran out before they got there - same again in the Battle of the Bulge, where they were trying to secure Allied fuel dumps, but ran out before they got there.

WX
03-09-2009, 10:41 PM
Portland in war, at the end of it you usually just exchange one mob of problems for another mob.
EG. World War Two ends, the Cold War starts.

Herby
03-10-2009, 02:15 AM
War doesn't decide who wins, War decides who's left.

WX
03-10-2009, 04:37 AM
During the Cold War the Russians and the US used proxy nations to fight each other. Millions died, it's just that they weren't anyone we cared enough about to fight for.

WX
03-10-2009, 06:18 AM
The bombing campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPgy4mZrYd4&feature=channel

downthecreek
03-10-2009, 06:27 AM
During the Cold War the Russians and the US used proxy nations to fight each other. Millions died, it's just that they weren't anyone we cared enough about to fight for.

Yup.