Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The main German problem was Hitler's volutnarism - the Germans were fighting very well at this time in the Ardennes. Hitler personally rejected the possibility of a Soviet offensive in Poland, which was the second important reason for the Soviet successes. The Germans fought to the last man - both the Allies and the Soviets suffered significant losses.Germany was out of fuel and food. They had no reserve manpower. Their industry was in ruins and their infrastructure was nearly non-existant.
These are all much less significant factors than the two I already mentioned.The reason why the operation was shelved, was not solely based on Red numbers, but other factors, such as he Soviets allying with Japan in the Pacific, the onset of winter and so on.
The Soviets have experience in using tank armies to break through the front. They have a huge fleet of trucks - thanks to Lend-Lease. The density of roads in Germany is high. After the impassable swamps of Belarus and the mud of Central Russia, these are almost ideal conditions for the Soviets. In the air in the first month will probably be parity. So, the conditions are quite suitable for a powerful strike.Once again, we have to look beyond numbers and examine how each side would use their equipment and logistics to best effect.
Before you complain about motes . . .
Not sure I can agree on the supply lines for the Russians, if I'm wrong let me know but aren't they still having to run transport through Belarus and Central Russia before they get to Germany? Also, those LL trucks are going to start A). Running out of parts/tires and B). start to be decimated by the 2nd TAF and the 9th AF fighter bombers and light/medium bombers.*SNIP*
The Soviets have experience in using tank armies to break through the front. They have a huge fleet of trucks - thanks to Lend-Lease. The density of roads in Germany is high. After the impassable swamps of Belarus and the mud of Central Russia, these are almost ideal conditions for the Soviets. In the air in the first month will probably be parity. So, the conditions are quite suitable for a powerful strike.
in addition. The question arises, why would the Soviets need to attack? I think the Soviets also realized that they would lose any long war and any war with the Allies in general, but could try to achieve better conditions in the peace negotiations. As a result, it cannot be ruled out that they would be returned to the same "Yalta" borders. In other words, nothing would be changed, just a few million more people would be killed.
At least as far as Poland/Hungary/Slovakia, delivery will be by rail. I don't think Allied airpower will prevent it in the first month.Not sure I can agree on the supply lines for the Russians, if I'm wrong let me know but aren't they still having to run transport through Belarus and Central Russia before they get to Germany? Also, those LL trucks are going to start A). Running out of parts/tires and B). start to be decimated by the 2nd TAF and the 9th AF fighter bombers and light/medium bombers.
The Soviets had no real plans for a war of aggression in Europe in 1945 (headquarters always plan something, but politically there were no prerequisites). They were well aware of the situation, were quite happy with what they had achieved and did not want any continuation. But, apparently, they received information about the plan for Operation Unthinkable.However, from a personal standpoint of having had to listen to Russian blustering bullshit and smugness from the 1960's on, and as tempting as it is to see that all wiped away with a good ass kicking, it isn't worth the life of one American or British (or any allied) soldier to accomplish it. I personally think that behind closed doors, Soviet leadership knew what the score was, if not, than they were dumber than they looked. And yes, I always thought the looked dumb with every inch of their uniforms covered in "medals".
Until we get the Chinese (and North Korean) loss statistics, all estimates of the loss/kill ratio in the Korean War remain incomplete. It concerns the bomber vs fighter debate as well.Damn, I'd really hoped you have serious arguments.
I am not interested in American documents - they are completely irrelevant in this case. MiG losses can only be calculated from Soviet documents, which has already been done. In reality, B-29 crews shot down from 1 to 4 Soviet MiGs, of which 1 turned out to be Chinese, and two can be credited to the escort. How many B-29 gunners shot down Chinese MiGs - I don't know, I don't think it was much more.
Let me chime in and paraphrase. The Soviets had no such plans...that were found in the archives until today.The Soviets had no real plans for a war of aggression in Europe in 1945 (headquarters always plan something, but politically there were no prerequisites).
We're not evaluating pilots, we're evaluating airplanes. Therefore, the losses of the Chinese and Koreans will not fundamentally change anything - we will assume that on the Soviet data we reach the asymptote, which, in fact, we are interested in. A well-trained pilot could attack unescorted B-29s without much risk. All combats with B-29s are reflected in Soviet documents, which were not written to create a distorted impression 60 years later.Until we get the Chinese (and North Korean) loss statistics, all estimates of the loss/kill ratio in the Korean War remain incomplete. It concerns the bomber vs fighter debate as well.
As for the Soviet documents, we should keep in mind not only "innocent" errors but also political and other biases. By the way, such biases are common also for many post-Soviet Russian historians, including those who published several books about the Korean War as Seidov, Krylov, etc.
Judging by the speed with which the Soviets were cutting back on military production, they had no intention of going to war with the Allies in either 1945 or 1946.Let me chime in and paraphrase. The Soviets had no such plans...that were found in the archives until today.
Which exactly documents were published in 2010-2012?The documents confirming the Soviet offensive plans of 1941 were not published until 2010-2012.
A loss is a loss is a loss. It doesn't matter if enemy action caused or if the extra stress on the engines caused by the climb to 30,000 feet caused. The crew in a dinghy off the coast of Japan doesn't care what brought them down they are just hoping to be rescued.We have to consider only losses due to enemy action - losses due to technical failures, etc. depends non-linearly on the number of planes taken into account, and this value was totally different.
I just mentioned that we should mix values for daylight and night attacks for correct statistical interpretation. In night rides the altitude had no significant impact on losses.
No, it's not. If we consider the effect of altitude over the target (i.e. enemy impact), we should not distort it by losses due to other factors. The essence of statistical analysis is to determine the role of each factor separately so that the resulting data can be used for forecasting/planning.A loss is a loss is a loss. It doesn't matter if enemy action caused or if the extra stress on the engines caused by the climb to 30,000 feet caused.
For planning of operations it is absolutely irrelevant what the crew in the dinghy off the coast of Japan hope for, or whether they hope at all.The crew in a dinghy off the coast of Japan doesn't care what brought them down they are just hoping to be rescued.
Interesting, what were the 2010/12 publications? Much earlier there was icebreaker by Suvorov, the man who gave Stalin a million man parachute army, a pen name for an ex KGB officer who published a series of books on what the USSR was up to. When the archives opened it was clear most of his books were more fiction than fact.Let me chime in and paraphrase. The Soviets had no such plans...that were found in the archives until today.
The documents confirming the Soviet offensive plans of 1941 were not published until 2010-2012.
Agree. In addition.Interesting, what were the 2010/12 publications? Much earlier there was icebreaker by Suvorov, the man who gave Stalin a million man parachute army, a pen name for an ex KGB officer who published a series of books on what the USSR was up to. When the archives opened it was clear most of his books were more fiction than fact.
...
Maybe so. Or maybe some intentions didn't make their way into the plans after another consideration or after the Bomb in Japan. Or maybe plans didn't survive or they changed, etc.Judging by the speed with which the Soviets were cutting back on military production, they had no intention of going to war with the Allies in either 1945 or 1946.
Which exactly documents were published in 2010-2012?
It has nothing to do with the planning of the aggression in Europe.Maybe so. Or maybe some intentions didn't make their way into the plans after another consideration or after the Bomb in Japan. Or maybe plans didn't survive or they changed, etc.
Attempts "to probe" the Allies were made, for example, in Northern Iran. Turkey was bullied, etc.
The explanation may be not so complicated: the Soviets were informed about the plans of the Operation Unthinkable in May 1945.My Dad graduated from the Naval College in 1945. Their study program was abruptly changed just months before graduation and cadets were sent to train as marines and to practice landings on the beaches of the Caspian Sea. They learned to drive lend leased Jeeps, fired machine guns etc. Then they were back to their studies and exams. It has never been explained.
Which exactly documents with invasion plans? Military games cannot be recognized as invasion plans.In 2010-2012, several Genshtab documents with maps were discovered in central archives. Military games of 1940-1941 and invasion plans.
Solonin does not follow a scientific approach and is not a serious historian. He is very biased and manipulates facts. Despite his education as an aeronautical engineer, even in this field he reveals dilettantism.Mark Solonin has covered this subject extensively in his last books and articles.
That's not true.ust let me state the facts: after years of ridiculing Suvorov's theory, a number of his critics in the Russian historical community after they got access to archives in the late 1990s-2000s have (silently) agreed that the USSR did plan to strike first.
Some of Meltyukhov's theses were not supported by documents or facts. I have read his books, and in some places he makes rather strange assumptions and suppositions, which are not justified. But he is undoubtedly a researcher, which means you can debate with him.And discussion moved on - to the possible dates, areas of operations, etc. Mikhail Meltukhov was one of the most reputable names on that list.
V.B.Rezun's ideas have been rejected in the scientific community - at least in Europe, in Russia, as I know, too.Saying all above, Suvorov made many mistakes, indeed and he recognised them.
Well...Military games cannot be recognized as invasion plans.
This is a deployment under the guise of a military exercise, not a command staff exercise ( military games), several of which took place in 1940-1941. The Soviets exercised different scenarios, mainly plans for an offensive operation after repulsing an enemy strike. The purpose of the event was to train the command staff.