Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (37724)	8/14/2002 5:41:26 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Quoting Zhukov. Well... I would listen to what he had to say and give it credence before I listened to anyone else of course. Those supplies of rails, rolling stock, explosive powder etc looks impressive too. Do you have a link for that? BY the way, did you know strategic bombing was the second front?? Yes, well the earlier list of links on this thread were about a fairly involved set of discussions with Hawk, Bilow and others about the effectiveness of the large bombers to the war effort. It was my contention that their role was underestimated. They kept the Nazis very busy indeed and drew off a very large amount of the Nazi air force. Sure the fighter to bomber ratio needed to be a little different in hindsight. Fact is the Germans realized fairly early on that they had completely blundered for not developing large four engined bombers. That shows many of the "secret weapons" projects were just wild "Hail Mary" throws. The V1 and V2 projects were very real though. More on that later. Yes, your confidence seems to stem from an interesting set of well researched figures. However, I still think your assertions are WAY ahead of themselves -lol- First though, about the book we PM'd about. I'm buying it of course. amazon.com The interesting fact that pops up first is that they had diesel engines. When did the Shermans convert to diesels?? Were they Russian diesels engines??? I guess I find out when I read the book. I wonder what "precision shooting by the Soviets" means -g- That report I posted on the T34 problems vs the Sherman problems spotlights some interesting facts.... (1) The T34 had simple mechanical problems that (with assistance from USA manufacturing and mechanical experts) the Russians could just go ahead and get fixed. (2) The problems that the American faced were more associated with senior management. I'm familier with those problems too (as most engineers are) and they are usually very hard to fix, no matter how good your engineering expertise is. I had to smirk when it was noted the Shermans had gasoline engines because the navy needed the diesels. Also it is apparent that the armor issue (in technical terms) is being dictated to the Russians who know a bit about the subject, and the evidence clearly shows they knew what they were talking about. I suggest some one higher up at a bee in his bonnet about the necessity for strong thin armor. A lot of this is hindsight though. Fact is the USA had to get a LOT of armaments out quickly. Decisions had to be made and the production lines rolling. History shows they did a great job overall. Ok back to the main line of the discussion. It's OK, I don't mind changing my mind on a subject if there is evidence there to do so. Your facts (some of which are new to me) have been pondered over. So I will make an even clearer, far more strict, definition of my position and see if you can do anything with it. STATEMENT: At no time during the 1939 to 1946 time frame was the USA capable, by any means whatsoever (excepting nukes) capable of attacking and destroying the hostile forces in Europe either in the form of the Nazis or the Soviets without incurring several million USA casualties. So I even allow you to choke back a little on USA supplies to the Soviets to leave them even more disabled in 1945. I wouldn't suggest you do that btw. It was a near run thing at times. You could easily end up with another 150 German divisions in France and I think I win my point after that. Not only that but you have all the extra resources pouring V1 and V2 rockets over the channel making life very difficult indeed. Those jets hanging out on the runways in the mid west would need fueling up right away <ggg> Therefore we get back to the normal end of the war. President stops all USA supplies to the Russians. They have what they have at that point in time though. Patton lines up 100+ USA divisions and roles into the USSR. Patten was a very good general from what I have read. Now, one important item I have not been able to determine is how many experienced Russian soldiers were left at the end of WW2. Yes we both have approximate same numbers for losses etc. I have had a good look around the Internet for that number. You may be able to prove your point just with one accurate link. If the number was less then 1 million you probably win. 2 million doubtful, because the Russians were in defense and waiting in the woods for the Americans to pass along the roads with the swamps at either side. The amount of arms and supplies available may also be an important point, attrition rates etc. Remember these guys had fought Stalingrad etc and were very experienced at this stage. Fact is the Russian didn't feel they were short of armies. When the POW's returned from the Germany...they shot most of them. Well, all of them I think. Airpower. The Russians had a large amount of good aircraft and experienced pilots. They knew all about this interaction between air and ground troops etc. They didn't have much in the way of large bombers. Russia is a very big place though. There is many ways the USA forces could have got into real trouble imho. Also, I feel you have missed my main point. How would the USA public felt about this?? That's what the Russian propaganda machine would have worked on too. There were plenty of left wing socialists and communists in the USA at that time. Maybe you would know more then me on that point? The UK would have been sunk for sure. The reason why John Maynard Keynes was so influential in the UK in the 30's was he was the only real alternative to the commies taking over. My view is Eisenhower got it right. The USA went on to win the Cold War.