Was Patton Ignorant?

[Antediluvian Monster]

Maybe check how many men and equipment each of the 10 allied armies and each of the 46 soviet armies represent ?

Manpower vice it's probably in region of one Allied corps equals half to one Soviet army (e.g. Soviet rifle division was typically 5000-7000 effectives while Allied one was at least twice or even three times that, while Soviet tank corps was a plainly divisional level unit), but Soviets do have more basic infantry in that mix.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Manpower vice it's probably in region of one Allied corps equals half to one Soviet army (e.g. Soviet rifle division was typically 5000-7000 effectives while Allied one was at least twice or even three times that, while Soviet tank corps was a plainly divisional level unit), but Soviets do have more basic infantry in that mix.

Now let’s compare the TO&E of an American v Russian army.

Start with radios.

 

[Sunforged General]

Stop making things up. At the end of the war, the Avro Lancaster was capable of achieving 4000km with a half bomb load. The B29 was capable of much more.

4000 Km total flight distance. Range is calculated as the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing. As in it can fly 2000 km out, then 2000 km back. The Distance from France to the Ural mountains is 3500+ km. How about next time check your facts before accusing other people of making up things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)

"The maximal total range is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing,"

 

[Sunforged General]

It is like having a conversation with a copy of Pravda.

Pravda's standards must have gone up if they are the same as historical facts, with sources, from an American.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Pravda's standards must have gone up if they are the same as historical facts, with sources, from an American.

More that your opinions and factual statements resemble Soviet propaganda rather than serious scholarship.

 

[Easy-Kill]

4000 Km total flight distance. Range is calculated as the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing. As in it can fly 2000 km out, then 2000 km back. The Distance from France to the Ural mountains is 3500+ km. How about next time check your facts before accusing other people of making up things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)

"The maximal total range is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing,"

What you are talking about is ferry range. The actual combat range will vary significantly depending on bomb load, speed fuel, whether the aircraft uses additional fuel tanks, formation flown, evasive 3D manoeuvres used etc. Etc. For example the maximum flight range of a B29 was reportedly a huge 9000 miles.

Regardless the range doesn't even matter as the strategic bombardment campaign would drop massive of thousands of bomba in the opening weeks/months and the targets won't be the Urals, they will be probably massed Soviet formations that are collecting in forming up positions.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

What you are talking about is ferry range. The actual combat range will vary significantly depending on bomb load, speed fuel, whether the aircraft uses additional fuel tanks, formation flown, evasive 3D manoeuvres used etc. Etc. For example the maximum flight range of a B29 was reportedly a huge 9000 miles.

Regardless the range doesn't even matter as the strategic bombardment campaign would drop massive of thousands of bomba in the opening weeks/months and the targets won't be the Urals, they will be probably massed Soviet formations that are collecting in forming up positions.

You may be waiting a while for that reply, hoss.

 

[Easy-Kill]

You may be waiting a while for that reply, hoss.

Possibly. The gentleman has however provoked some interesting debate though - it's always nice to have to justify your opinion by reminding yourself of other works and facts.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Possibly. The gentleman has however provoked some interesting debate though - it's always nice to have to justify your opinion by reminding yourself of other works and facts.

My favorite was the bibliography of Amazon ISBN numbers using absolutely zero citations or quotes from said reference materials; serving no purpose other than to remind us books exist unread on the shelf around the world.

 

[Easy-Kill]

My favorite was the bibliography of Amazon ISBN numbers using absolutely zero citations or quotes from said reference materials; serving no purpose other than to remind us books exist unread on the shelf around the world.

Well that is unfortunate and might even be called lazy. Also, the questions aren't really asked in a constructive way (Did Patton underestimate the flighting capability of the USSR? Might have been better).

 

[Kovax]

Better than Germany, who couldn't even build 1. But really, what does it matter in the context of this threat, America did not field a bomber that could fly to the Ural mountains and attack Soviet industry. So in this war, Americans bombers are worth nothing.

Not even one, unless you count the Condor, which was a 4-engine naval bomber. I'd have stated it as "didn't even build 1", rather than "couldn't", it apparently wasn't enough of a priority until the Battle of Britain, and then after that it was too late to matter.

Now let’s compare the TO&E of an American v Russian army.

Start with radios.

Two very different sets of numbers, if you count radios or count WORKING radios. All Soviet T-34 tanks included radios, but typically only 1 or 2 out of the entire tank company still functioned. The rest were cannibalized for parts to keep the commander's radio set functional most of the time. It got better late in the war, after American equipment started showing up.​

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Not even one, unless you count the Condor, which was a 4-engine naval bomber. I'd have stated it as "didn't even build 1", rather than "couldn't", it apparently wasn't enough of a priority until the Battle of Britain, and then after that it was too late to matter.

Two very different sets of numbers, if you count radios or count WORKING radios. All Soviet T-34 tanks included radios, but typically only 1 or 2 out of the entire tank company still functioned. The rest were cannibalized for parts to keep the commander's radio set functional most of the time. It got better late in the war, after American equipment started showing up.​

I assume you are talking about most Russian tanks having radios at the end of the war, certainly not at the beginning when German forces targeted the one T-34 with an antenna because the limited visibility and command and control structure of early model T-34 tended toward operating like lemmings, one following the other.

And, as I was taught back in a history class once upon a time; Soviet ground communications during the early stages of the war at times depended upon semaphore flags due to the extreme lack of basic infantry equipment during the early stages of the Great Patriotic War.

And, while I might be mistaken, my understanding is the most valuable asset the US provided by lend lease (other than Spam) were small, portable, reliable radios in a quantity completely unavailable to the Soviets otherwise.

On the other hand, the US army is built around the radio, and the array of forces it can be used to call to bear on a point requiring special treatment is awesome to behold, as the German armor columns who met the US Tactical XIX air force during the Bulge found out the hard way.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Well that is unfortunate and might even be called lazy. Also, the questions aren't really asked in a constructive way (Did Patton underestimate the flighting capability of the USSR? Might have been better).

Was Patton 'ignorant' as a thread topic is more a reflection of the person asking the question than of Patton himself. However, while we are here, why don't we frame Patton's argument properly.

The only thing Stalin understood was force. And while we had an army over here capable of waging war against them, go ahead and push them back across their borders and tell them to stay there. Then withdraw and have Peace In Our Time.

The Marshall Plan, where America BANKROLLS the rebuilding of Western Europe, shows America's intentions. Stalin builds a wall, and a regime worth standing in line for across Eastern Europe.

Patton never wanted to defeat Russia, he merely wanted to prevent what became the Warsaw Pact under Stalin's iron grip creating needless military tension in the world in the post-war era; then die and wait to be born again and fight the next war.

Maybe he was right?

 

[MCMartel]

Was Patton 'ignorant' as a thread topic is more a reflection of the person asking the question than of Patton himself. However, while we are here, why don't we frame Patton's argument properly.

The only thing Stalin understood was force. And while we had an army over here capable of waging war against them, go ahead and push them back across their borders and tell them to stay there. Then withdraw and have Peace In Our Time.

The Marshall Plan, where America BANKROLLS the rebuilding of Western Europe, shows America's intentions. Stalin builds a wall, and a regime worth standing in line for across Eastern Europe.

Patton never wanted to defeat Russia, he merely wanted to prevent what became the Warsaw Pact under Stalin's iron grip creating needless military tension in the world in the post-war era; then die and wait to be born again and fight the next war.

Maybe he was right?

Um, dude, "needless tension" compared to the literally millions that would have died in a WWII-Part 2? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It was obviously a bad idea, and to be perfectly honest, it's not even clear if Patton actually believed in it, or was just spouting off for the sake of grandstanding and bravado, which he did literally all the time.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Um, dude, "needless tension" compared to the literally millions that would have died in a WWII-Part 2? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It was obviously a bad idea, and to be perfectly honest, it's not even clear if Patton actually believed in it, or was just spouting off for the sake of grandstanding and bravado, which he did literally all the time.

You mistake me, I am articulating the argument, not pushing it.

And who said the actual war would ever be fought? It is the idea that the show of force in and of itself, rather than diplomacy negotiated by a man standing in death's doorway, would be enough to bring the Soviets to use reason rather than bravado.

 

[The Heroic Champion]

I never much cared for General Patton, in the Montgomery-Patton rivalry, I often found my self agreeing with Montgomery. There is probably a reason why Montgomery was made a Field Marshal of the British army and Patton remained a four star general of the US army. In my personal opinion, General George S. Patton's skill and achievements, did not warrant the level of arrogance he had.

 

[MCMartel]

Both of them were enormously pompous assholes with major flaws in their generalship, but undeniable skill nonetheless. I can't find myself really "agreeing" with either.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

The Soviet army in WWII was highly dependent on rail for most of its logistical support. There were only adequate trucks to keep the armoured/mechanised units functioning for about 250km advances from the nearest railhead. Even then the advance could only be sustained for short period of high intensity. T

That's not Soviets. That's all WW II armies, including Americans.

Also, the one Soviet advantage that's usually not thought of in such scenario is the complete superiority of Soviet leadership. I mean, when you compare the operational performance of allied armies with soviet ones, you got to wonder whether they got inspiration from early US Civil War.

Compare forcing the Rhine to forcing the Dnieper and weep.

 

[Kovax]

Also, the one Soviet advantage that's usually not thought of in such scenario is the complete superiority of Soviet leadership.

Yes, generals like Budyenny (spelling?) showed amazing insights as to how to kill off hundreds of thousands of men in a matter of weeks, too bad it was their own men. Granted, many generals learned as the war went on, but so did some of the allied leaders in the much shorter time they had to do so.

Maur,new correctly points out the vital importance of rails for any operation at a significant distance from its supply sources. The US managed it on a different continent, with the limitations of the captured ports, and having to transfer supplies from ship to rail, then to truck.

 

[Henry IX]

That's not Soviets. That's all WW II armies, including Americans.

This is correct. However, the Soviet army was far more dependent on railway transport than the Western Allies, due to a far lower truck lift, including both as a % of total needs and on a per unit basis. The Americans could function at a far greater distance from railheads for a far longer time than the Soviet forces.