SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hoa Hao who wrote (37090)8/11/2002 8:55:59 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Germans were fairly good on this logistics and stuff, yet the Russians won the biggest battles of WW2.

Not only Hitler, Napoleon was beaten by the Russian "super weapons" of Weather, Distance, Mud and Snow.

If the Germans could maim and kill nearly a million men in the Battle of Berlin, in very primitive conditions, why does this give you confidence that the Russians could not repeat the exercise on the USA armies invading the mother country?

The Sherman tank was good on firm roads, of which there were plenty in Europe. Off roads it did not do so well according to the records. The evidence at Normandy was a terrible shock to the USA tank crews.

Eisenhower handled the situation well and brought the boys back home after Germany was defeated. The USA is a democracy after all and politics count more then anything.

I have every respect for the USA armed forces and the industrial back up machine. The civilian viewpoint..What happens if things go wrong and historical casualty rates start to happen is more my concern. The American public needs to think this through imho. A pre-emptive attack would possibly not look good in those conditions

However...yes I still believe the USA could have lost a million, maybe two million or more invading Russia.... If they got to Moscow at all.



To: Hoa Hao who wrote (37090)8/12/2002 7:21:45 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
(OT) Well i was most intrigued about some guy saying the Sherman Tank was a "vastly superior" tank as opposed to German and Soviet varieties. And of course doubly intrigued that he should, in typical brash USA style, say that the USA WW2 forces could have pushed on and defeated USSR after the end of WW2 because the USSR forces were "burned out". Also remarking (with a fine touch) that they didn't even need the Allies to do it. Of course I know my American friends a little, and know it could also be an ambush of sorts.

Two seperate Russian armies racing one another, taking massive casualties, to plonk a flag on the Reichstag does not sound "burned out" to me. Loony perhaps yes.

So I have done some reconnoitre of the internet and the many websites on this very subject. Listened to many points of view "sounding off". However the technical details and the "field testing" is the strongest evidence on the matter.

I'm an Engineer by trade and know how even engineers can argue bitterly on technical matters. I have this flattering view of myself that I can maybe resolve some of these technical conflicts in many circumstances. So here goes. -g-

First a detailed evaluation by USA experts of sample USSR (The T34 was primarily of Ukraine design, so I won't say "Russian") tanks delivered in 1942. A really good read.

battlefield.ru

I expect the review was cordial. Both the Russians and the American technical experts wanted badly for both their respective armed forces to improve quickly. It was a real tough time generally. The most professional USA experts (The original SPC experts who trained the fledgling Japanese industries after WW2) were able to quickly identify many straight forward problems. I hope the Soviet guy got taken out for a few beers and a good USA style steak dinner at the end of the review. He probably deserved it. But there is also a very clear indication that the USA experts were having big problems with the Sherman tank design regarding armor penetration, and nobody was listening. USA WW2 torpedoes type problem (imho.. see prev links), someones golf game was more important then the war. This is where Japanese management improved upon the USA variety after WW2 (imho). The situation has balanced a bit since then.

Anyway over to the "field testing" stage.

At Normandy, the highly reliable Shermans did suffer from a lack of armor, worse the "hedge groves" made the problem much worse where the unamored underbelly could be easily blasted. (thanks for that note jlallen btw). As reviewed with solution here..

pbs.org

Fact is though those big guns from heavily armored German tanks could also just clear the field of Shermans with gasoline engines and inadaquate armor.

civilization.ca

The desert and El Amain battles saw the Shermans (like all the British Armor too) very suceptable to superior German guns, Armor and tatics. Even the German 50 cm anti tank guns swept the field of Shermans and everything else there too. The British had the 6 pounder anti tank gun and was able to replicate the anti tank role. There was a lot of killing and the Allies carried the day for once in a typical WW1 static lines scenareo. Exit Rommel from the Desert. Minor play.

One English guy captured after his Valitine Tank got smashed, watched a German 88 in action (which threw a 9 kg AP round at very high velocity) said... "It's not fair, such a big gun against such a little tank".

Fact is (imho) when it came to the big showdowns in the Soviet vs German battles in the Eastern Front tank reliability probably killed lots of crews... but it was the guys with the mostest, the biggest guns, biggest armor would win the day. Once that tank got off the start line for a few miles, and killed at least one other tank it did its job. Brutal but that was the reality. The Russians also learned tatics in real big battles that would win. Also very brutal how they would do that.

So how many of these guys used Shermans?

wio.boom.ru

Lets get back to the USA invading the USSR again. Lets say the burned out USSR forces got knocked back to the the 1943 lines where the Soviets had defences in depth of 20 miles or more. What is the anticipated USA losses in wiping out Soviet resistance in that area knowing they would play the spring or winter weather card that would reduce the whole battle to just a brutal kill and be killed scenario?

wio.boom.ru

What about a 100 km wide counter attack on a different part of the several thousand km line front with 50 divisions shooting from T34's in the snow or mud? Estimated USA casualties??

How would the democratic USA civilian population deal with that??

Synopsis. I remain skeptical that the USA could have knocked out the Soviets straight after WW2. It could have gone wrong big time. Millions of casualties no problem at all. (imho)



To: Hoa Hao who wrote (37090)8/13/2002 11:02:30 AM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Well UK's Tony Blair can make himself look good by firing some real stoopid civil servants for allowing this to happen...

themoscowtimes.com

Britain Refuses Russian Honor for WWII Sailors

By Irina Titova and Kevin O'Flynn
Staff Writers

British Embassy In Moscow

The crew of a World War II convoy ship clearing ice and snow off the decks during the treacherous voyage to the Soviet Union.


The British government has poured cold water on an initiative by Soviet Navy veterans to honor British sailors who took part in the World War II Arctic convoys to the Soviet Union.

During the war, Arctic convoys transported material from the West to the U.S.S.R. to aid its fight against Nazi Germany. In recognition of their service, Soviet sailors who served in the navy and merchant marine in these convoys were awarded the Arctic Defense Medal.

Last fall, a group of Soviet Navy veterans launched an initiative to see that foreign sailors who served in the convoys also receive the recognition their Russian counterparts feel they are due.

But last week the British Defense Ministry seemingly doused those hopes by refusing permission for British veterans to be honored by Russia.

A Defense Ministry spokeswoman said: "The acceptance and wearing of foreign awards is subject to the rules agreed by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Honors and Decorations Committee [of the Cabinet Office].

"These rules do not permit the acceptance and wearing of medals for services rendered in the distant past, i.e. more than five years previously."

The spokeswoman said the rules were designed to stop decisions made during the war from being questioned.

Many veterans in Russia and Britain find the decision hard to understand.

"The [British] government has no right to forbid the award of medals," said Anatoly Uvarov, a captain in the Soviet Navy during the war and one of those behind the initiative.

Commander Eddie Grenfell told The Daily Telegraph: "These decisions are made by people who've never seen a shot fired in anger. They have no idea of the hell we went through.

"We veterans are dismayed and disgusted by the government's ungrateful attitude."

Under the initiative thought up by the Russians, all veterans of the allied Arctic convoys would receive the Russian medal.

"We should give all proper recognition to our colleagues -- sailors from Britain, the United States, France, Poland, Canada and Norway -- who put their lives at risk just as we did," Uvarov said. "They sailed and often died together with us under the fascist bombs in order to bring essential aid to the Soviet Union."

Between Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 and the end of World War II, thousands of sailors served in convoys delivering aid under the Lend-Lease program, under which the United States delivered arms, ammunition, food supplies and other strategic items to allied countries fighting the Axis powers.

Thousands of sailors in foreign navies and merchant marines were killed or wounded serving in the convoys. Britain alone lost 2,000 naval and 1,000 civilian sailors on this transport route.

Between Aug. 31, 1941, when the first "Dervish" convoy arrived in the Soviet port of Arkhangelsk, and May 1945, the United States and Britain organized 42 convoys to the northern ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. In partial payment, the Soviet Union sent 36 convoys bearing raw materials in the opposite direction.

Although the crews of the merchant vessels were usually from a number of countries, the British Navy guarded the convoys until they reached Soviet waters, at which point the Soviet Navy would take over responsibility for defending them. Even with protection from warships, the route was dangerous: An average of five to six vessels from each convoy were sunk by German submarine and air attacks.

"The battles in the Arctic were the most horrendous of all I had seen in my life," said Grenfell, a British veteran of the Arctic convoys who also served in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. "I remember the terrible day when a German bomber sank the Empire Lawrence, the convoy ship I was on, and the horror of that day," he said in a telephone interview from England.

On May 27, 1942, a convoy including the Empire Lawrence was attacked by more than 200 German aircraft of the Luftwaffe. At 2 p.m., a flight of six medium bombers focused their attacks on the Empire Lawrence, scoring five direct hits and triggering an explosion in the ammunition-filled holds that turned the vessel into a gigantic fireball.

"I remember it as if it were just yesterday," Grenfell said. "Flying through the air surrounded by large chunks of steel, one that looked like the ship's funnel.

"I hit the water and went down very deep, and when I opened my eyes, I found myself faced with a swirling black turmoil instead of the green sea I had expected.

"With my lungs close to bursting, I prayed, even argued with my Maker. Something was hanging on my right arm. I gave a heave and brought to the surface the body of someone impossible to recognize. A piece of metal, still there, had almost cleaved his head in two."

Thanks to his rescue by a British lifeboat, Grenfell survived the ordeal and went on to serve on three more convoys.

Konstantin Sergeyev, a St. Petersburg resident who served in a submarine on the northern convoy routes, said Grenfell was lucky, as the chances of survival for a sailor whose ship had been sunk were extremely low.

"The average temperature in the Arctic is minus 30 degrees Celsius, and the Barents Sea, which the convoys were sailing through, is hit by about 10 to 15 storms a month," Sergeyev said. "A person can generally only survive in these waters for about three minutes."

Grenfell still remembers the freezing conditions on board the ships. "Even inside the ship, the bulkheads were covered with two inches of ice, and the guns were also iced up," he said.

Much as any rescue of a sailor in the water had to be done quickly, Uvarov said it was urgent that surviving foreign participants in the northern convoys receive their decorations. According to Uvarov, there are only about 250 of them still alive in Britain, with another 40 living in the United States, 50 in France and Norway and 50 more in Canada and Poland.

Uvarov said it has been a long haul getting through the bureaucratic barriers to convince the Russian government to award these medals. Previously, allied veterans of the convoys had received medals from Russia marking the 40th and 50th anniversaries of victory in what Russians call the Great Patriotic War, but the convoy medal is of higher standing as it is a battle decoration.

Last month, Uvarov and his companions finally received the answer they had been seeking when Murmansk Governor Yury Yevdokimov, who is responsible for the region where the convoys served, sent them a letter asking them to provide a list of all eligible veterans to send to the Foreign Ministry for approval.

Speaking before last week's statement by the British Defense Ministry, Ray Ball, another British convoy sailor, said veterans would be thrilled to receive the decorations, as those veterans who have been awarded Russian commemorative medals wear them with great pride.

"To be awarded a medal for actual service would be the icing on the cake, particularly as our own government has not recognized the Arctic convoys as a theater of war and has not issued a campaign medal," Ball said.

Sergeyev said: "I think that the most important thing in the world is the friendship between all nations. It shouldn't depend on the games of politicians who just want to separate us.

"We fought alongside our foreign allies. We helped each other. We really had the chance to see how reliable and great those people are, and we want them to know how we feel about that."