I have recently finished off Armageddon by Max Hastings, which covers the last phase of Germany in WW2, after D-Day and the Soviet Summer offensives in Eastern Europe, up to the end of the war on Europe.
There are some quite sobering observations the author makes.The German and Soviet war machines were superior to those of America and Britain. Sure, America provided the industry and money, but I'm talking about raw military might.
America and Britain fought a cautious war, trying to minimise casualties, bearing in mind public opinion back home, as a democracy has to. Germany and the Soviet Union didn't have such concerns, as the people were so under the influence of propaganda.
Towards the end of the war, British and American troops tended the shy away from battle. This is quite understandable, as no-one wants to die in the last weeks. But when the whole army acts in this manner, it becomes difficult to advance at any pace. For Germany and the Soviet Union, they sacrificed lives in their tens and even hundreds of thousands right up to the end of the war, because the troops were fanatical in their indocrinated beliefs.
This is demonstrated by the relatively short distance British and American troops travelled across Germany in that time period. The Germans knew this as well, and so moved the bulk of their forces to the east, leaving a ramshackle of covering forces in the west. Yet still the Americans and British moved at a snails pace. Soviet forces were able to advance huge distances and make ambitious, decisive manouvers against the Germans. In earlier years, the Germans were also able to do this. The Americans and British did not fight many decisive battles against Germany. Most were won by sheer weight of numbers and firepower, rather than by manouver and surprise.
The conclusion the author arrives at is that the British and American soldiers fought as well as they could for a democracy, but would always be eclipsed by the soldier of a totalitarian regime.
Let's pretend for a second there were no nuclear weapons. What sets me thinking is if the Cold War went hot, would NATO have stood much of a chance in Europe? Can a democracy stand against a comparitively sized totalitarian regime?
Originally posted by gt: The tank battalions the Soviets had I think were 20/1 ( something absurd away). The jets ratio was similar and the manpower was pretty unequal.
A Red wave would have literaly swamped us. A Soviet Blitz Krieg
As one who served in the armed forces during the early eighties and was involved in operating with NATO, the image we recived was totally at odds with what you say.
The Soviet armed force may have looked impressive on paper but the real picture was one of a mixture of corruption, drunkness, poor servicing, not enough money and low morale.
However even the "Mighty" Soviet union could not control afghanistan
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
I think you have a fair point, in the context of the 1980's. The longer the Cold War did not go 'hot', the greater the advantage to the west. If the Soviet Union had tried for war earlier, then they would not have been laboured with the problems they had in the 1980's. Corruption was so endemnic by then, that there was something ridiculous like 50% of the Soviet economy was the black market. And when it seems that everyone was on the make on the side - who has the stomach for war?
I suppose this is the flip-side of the issue raised in Armageddon. Totalitarian regimes may be able to fight better, but the longer they don't fight, the greater the damage as decay and corruption sets in.
During the closing months of WW2 both German and Russian troops faced summary execution if they didn't fight hard enough. I think this might've been a major incentive to get stuck in, after all they had nothing to lose.
At the end of the day all that manpower and armour means nothing without air domination which the americans and british had by the end of 1943 and you must remember that the Germans were sriously lacking with regards to fuel which is why their offensive in the Ardennes region failed
I suppose this is the flip-side of the issue raised in Armageddon. Totalitarian regimes may be able to fight better, but the longer they don't fight, the greater the damage as decay and corruption sets in.
The problem with the russian troops in WW2 was once they entered other countries which had a higher living standard even in war time, their solidery was exposed things that their government did not want them to see.
This cause dissatifaction amongst the troops.
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
I got this from The Soviet Army - Tactics and organisation 1949 WO Code 8420.
quote:
The Russian solider, is neither so tough, brave, and fugal as the Japanese, nor of such a high standard of general technical ability and education as the German. There is no dount that a well trained British solider, making full use of the weapons at his disposal, is the superior of his Russian counterpart..."
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
The Wehrmacht enforced rules, which meant that suspected deserters could be shot out of hand. However, many fought to the bitter end without the need of external coercion. That is why it took so long to defeat them.
Also remember there were cases of British Army personnel being forced under gunpoint to fight in France in 1940 and in Far East in 1941-2.
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
Soviet Troops were encouraged, threatened, cajoled, and made to fight. They fought battles in conditions the likes of which the British and American troops could not dream of fighting in. But fight they did. Frequently they fought without the proper support or preperation. Man for man, they may have been less educated, less well trained and less tactically adept as their British or German counterparts, but that's missing the point. Soviet and German troops could be asked to die in their tens of thousands in an attack, and still win. British and Americans were very cautious and methodical in their advances, and would avoid heavy losses. The point is that the Germans and especially the Russians could take heavy losses in an attack without there being much of a public outcry.
To be honest, I was always under the impression, until I read Armageddon and D-Day by Max Hastings that British and Americans were more less equal in stature to their German and Soviet counterparts. It's only when you read about a British or American attack compared to a German or Soviet one that you see the great difference, and the punishment that the Soviet and German soldiers & their units could take and still fight effectively. The advance into Germany by America and Britain was hardly blitzkreig, whereas on the Eastern front, this was exactly what the Soviets were doing.
To be honest, I was always under the impression, until I read Armageddon and D-Day by Max Hastings that British and Americans were more less equal in stature to their German and Soviet counterparts.
Depends what you mean by equal stature - who wants to take needless casualties? The western Allies did what they had to do with the minimum loss of life required to do it - and by making enormous use of air and artillery.
The Russian losses in defeating Germany were wholly extravagant, and they haven't recovered to this day, they have a declining population I gather.
Certainly, unit for unit, weapon for weapon, the Germans were usually superior to the Western Allies. But as Hastings points out the objective was not to demonstrate military brilliance but to prevail at acceptable cost.
"Certainly, unit for unit, weapon for weapon, the Germans were usually superior to the Western Allies. But as Hastings points out the objective was not to demonstrate military brilliance but to prevail at acceptable cost"
Correct. But, Hastings other point was that as much as the British and American generals wanted to preserve the lives of their men, the men themselves did not and, perhaps, could not fight with as much determination and fantacism as the Soviet or German troops. They fought as well as could be expected of an army which was raised in a democracy could have fought.
My initial question was to take this point a little further, and ask if the democracies of NATO would have been able to withstand an attack from the Soviet Union and its allies, given that the Soviet Union was capable of launching ambitious and devastating attacks on a scale the Americans and British had never fought.
And to reply to your point about 'equal in stature' - I meant I thought that generally the British and American armies could attack and defend and conduct operations as well as the Soviets and Germans. When I first read about it, I was surprised how slowly the American and British troops moved forward in Normandy and then breaking into Holland and Germany, and generally how un-blitzkreig like they were. When I saw on a map how quickly they moved across France from Normandy, what I didn't know was that there were hardly any German forces of any size outside of Normandy at all.
When you take into account the performance of the British and Americans in Africa and Italy against the Germans, they do not compare very well against the Germans or Soviet forces.
British and Americans were very cautious and methodical in their advances, and would avoid heavy losses.
many british Commanders had served in the trenches during WW1 and therefore resovled to avoid the slaughter they had seen.
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
what I didn't know was that there were hardly any German forces of any size outside of Normandy at all.
What must taken into consideration was what was happening behins the scencs with supplies. Due to the damage caused to the Mulberry harbour the flow of crucial supplies was stemmed.
Also, the 1SS Panzer Corp put up a fantasic defence but did not use "human waves" in order to do it. Most of their troops and commanders had served in Russia.
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
British and Americans were very cautious and methodical in their advances, and would avoid heavy losses.
many british Commanders had served in the trenches during WW1 and therefore resovled to avoid the slaughter they had seen.
Yes, but the war wasn't won in the west, in was won in the East. The balance of the East/West German forces clearly demonstrates how much of a risk the Germans considered the Soviets to be in comparison to the Americans and British. Of course the British and American commanders avoided losses wherever they could, and this is to their credit. Taking losses on the scale of the Soviets would be completely unacceptable.
And this is the main point I was trying to make. The Soviets did take enormous losses, and battered the German army into submission. The German army was the most sophisticated war machine of its day, and was more than a match for the American and British forces. Both these regimes are totalitarian, and though Germany did not use 'human wave' tactics, it did fight right up to a very bloody end in the war.
Can a democracy fight with a similar tenacity against an organised totalitarian regime? So I ask the question, what would NATO's chances have been against a determined and and more numerous Warsaw Pact?
So I ask the question, what would NATO's chances have been against a determined and and more numerous Warsaw Pact?
it would be much better than many peple would have given NATO credit for.
it is only an assumption that the Warpact Armies would be determined.
However, NATO made their plans on the basis of a strong and determined enemy.
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
Can a democracy fight with a similar tenacity against an organised totalitarian regime? So I ask the question, what would NATO's chances have been against a determined and and more numerous Warsaw Pact?
if you get the chance you should read General Sir John Hackett's book "The Third World War" or "World War 3 - A Military projection founded on Todays's Facts" By Shelford Bidwell
On a personal point in the hardback edition of Hacketts book you can see my photo!
__________________________
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.
--Rev. Walter Lang Founder, Bible-Science Association
"Certainly, unit for unit, weapon for weapon, the Germans were usually superior to the Western Allies. But as Hastings points out the objective was not to demonstrate military brilliance but to prevail at acceptable cost"
Correct. But, Hastings other point was that as much as the British and American generals wanted to preserve the lives of their men, the men themselves did not and, perhaps, could not fight with as much determination and fantacism as the Soviet or German troops. They fought as well as could be expected of an army which was raised in a democracy could have fought.
My initial question was to take this point a little further, and ask if the democracies of NATO would have been able to withstand an attack from the Soviet Union and its allies, given that the Soviet Union was capable of launching ambitious and devastating attacks on a scale the Americans and British had never fought.
I think people generally fight harder when their land is invaded as would anyone. You do have to remember that while NATO ground forces were not superior to that of their russian counterparts they had specifically designed the Apache and and a-10 warthog to deal with soviet armour so that the troops 'could mop up what was left as they assumed their better trained and equipped troops could handle superior numbered soviet troops
