Patton Charge

[unmerged(4253)]

Data

These are rough numbers. THey may infact be grosly misaccurate. There may have been less than 1,000 soviet ships. Infact that is probably the way it really was.

33,000 shermans produced during war, granted that some were destroyed or gave to russia but the allies had other tanks too.

300,000 planes- based on Historical atlas of WW2 production charts and rough sum. Raid on Dresden was over 100,000 bombers.

50,000 russian planes- 30,000 of the russian fighter bombers were produced. Russia also produced heavy bombers and fighters. Many however were shot down. This number is based on production estimates from the historical atlas of WW two and I figured that many of the planes were destroyed durring the war.

50,000 russian tanks- based on numbers from historical atlas of WW two and the fact that the adverage t76, and t 86 had a life span of 7 days.

30,000 US ships- fact. At the end of WW2 the US had over 30,000 ships. By the Korean war they had about 1,000. Today the US has about 1,000.

5,000,000 soldiers. The US had about 5.5 million soldiers on both fronts by the end of WW2. The Brittish had a few hundred thousand more as well. Many of theses soldirs were in supply and auxillary tasks far from combat so I limited the number to about 5,000,000

7,000,000 Russians- The Russians had 5.5 million soldiers in 1945 attacking germany itself. Some of them were casualties but there were also soldiers in Southern Europe and the East. So i guessed at 7,000,000.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by sean9898


Cobra did have problems, including killing allied troops but there and at Monte Casino it was proved that the heavies could be used tacticaly. Bombing Monte Casino was a disaster, but not because using the heavies in a tactical role could not be done.

Didn't you argue in the Dresden thread that the heavies should have been used tacticaly?

I argued that it would have been a better use of the heavies, if they had been used in a tactical/operational role. I did not argue that they are good tactical bombers, which they are not.

During Cobra 1000+ planes managed to blow a hole 2 kilometers wide or so, while making the terrain almost unpassable. At Casino they managed to make a strong position even stronger. Not exactly signs of tactical usefulness or a good use of resources. If you have to mass 1000 bombers to have any tactical effect, you might want to consider different means.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Sorry Cool Elephant, but those numbers are waaay off. Soviet tank and plane production was larger by far.

Hannibal Barca: I am convinced you got the right figures. Where are they?

The Dresden raid was conducted by 800+ bombers IIRC. The total amount of bombers in the allied airforces at any given time was far, far below 100.000.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(592)]

remember Argentinia and Turkey also had planes they could have used. (though they would probably be outdated or axis/allied designs pre 1940 which is about the same) Don't know if Italy (which by 1945-50 definately would be on the western side of the trip) could commit a lot of fighters.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Agelastus

As to the Patton scenario. If the western public could be convinced, and if the initial Soviet response (a massive offensive) could be held then the Western Allies would probably have won such a war, for several reasons.

Hi Agelastus. You got some excellent points, but I beg to differ with your main conclusion. I do not think that the Allies could have won – at least not without sacrifices that would have been far bigger than in the wars against Germany and Japan, and I doubt that there would have been any political backup for that.

Besides? What would the war aims of the allies be? To overthrow the Soviet communist government? To invade all of Soviet until the banks of the Volga?

(I) Lend-Lease, and its importance as a logistical source for the Soviets. Not so much weaponry as trucks and raw materials etc. The Soviet ability to launch massive attacks is heavily dependant on a continuing influx from this source.

It was not so much their ability to launch offensives that depended on US trucks as it was their ability to sustain offensive momentum with resupply and reinforcements. Without lend-lease Soviet offensives would have been shorter and shallower, but they would have been there none the less.

(II) Manpower. In 1944-45 the Russians were actually stripping able-bodied men out of their factories to fill out their armies. They could do this only because the Germans were falling faster than them, in terms of Industrial production. The Soviet Union did have vast manpower reserves in 1941, by 1945 they had been effectively used up. The West, in particular the Americans, were a long way from scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Agreed. The Soviet Union was running out of manpower. But they were still far from being at a critical level in 1945 and they had started to conserve manpower in their tactics and operational strategy (if we disregard Berlin and the heights outside).
Britain was actually scraping the bottom of the barrel in ’45. Only the US had available reserves in large numbers.

(III) Atomic weaponry. A study of the proposals for "Coronet" and "Olympic" (the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu) reveal Allied plans for the extensive deployment of what we would today describe as Tactical Nuclear Warheads. For example, MacArthur wanted to use at least thirty to protect the flanks of his invasion. In the days before the dangers of radiation sickness were properly uinderstood, one can easily foresee a relatively profligate use of such weaponry, which should be quite effective against Soviet armour concentrations and railheads.

To the best of my knowledge the allies had precious few nuclear bombs even in 1946, but I might be wrong here.

(IV) Airpower. It is true that airpower alone has never won wars, but the qualitative and quantitative difference between the two sides is startling.

I think you underestimate both the quality and the quantity of the Soviet airforce of 1945. Besides, the air war would have taken place over Soviet controlled territory giving them the advantage the British enjoyed during the Battle for Britain.

(V) Finally, the industrial might of the west vis a vis the Soviet Union. At the very least the Allied forces would be supplied with the right type of lubricants and cold weather clothing, unlike the Ostheer in the critical winter of 1941-2!

Yes, if you suppose that the general(s) who proposed the attack were sane, rational beings with a knowledge of winterfighting under Russian conditions and without a contempt or disregard of their enemies. IMHO they might have acted just as arrogant as Napoleon and the Germans before them.

Nevertheless, I certainly would not want to be an American or British soldier in such a campaign. Given the renowned Russian tenacity it would most definitely not be a pleasant experience!

Agreed!

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


I argued that it would have been a better use of the heavies, if they had been used in a tactical/operational role. I did not argue that they are good tactical bombers, which they are not.

During Cobra 1000+ planes managed to blow a hole 2 kilometers wide or so, while making the terrain almost unpassable. At Casino they managed to make a strong position even stronger. Not exactly signs of tactical usefulness or a good use of resources. If you have to mass 1000 bombers to have any tactical effect, you might want to consider different means.

Regards,

EoE

Casino was a disaster because of poor/no intelligence or idiocy. The Germans were not occupying the monastery, so of course after the allies bombed it was made stronger, as the Germans were able to defend it.

Heavies are better at hitting cities, however, their use against rail, depots, or even against forces massing for an attack/counter attack would have made them useful.

The major problem for the allies is that their air superiority is no use in awful weather, something Russia has been known for occasionaly

 

[Agelastus]

Good post EoE.

(I) True, but an offensive that has to stop after five or ten miles (I know I'm probably exaggerating) is almost worse than none at all in many cases. All you've done is effectively created a WWI style salient in an era of mechanised forces. This is fine for spoiling attacks, but the Russians would need to be able to do more than that to win such a conflict.

(II) Actually you're right, we were scraping the bottom of the barrel. But after the 1945 Russian offensive, I'm damned sure the Soviets were too. Berlin alone cost them well over half a million casualties.

(III) Atomic bombs. Perhaps I overstated the numbers, although production could certainly have been ramped up over 1945 levels. Certainly MacArthur was counting on several (and the figure I can remember is thirty) being available for Coronet, from which one presumes a larger stockpile would have been available for Olympic. Besides, even a few would have been markedly effective against Soviet armoured formations, particularly if concentrated for their own offensive operations against the Allies.

(IV) I probably do underestimate the quality of Soviet airpower slightly. However, the Allied airforces are far superior in number, with equivalently skilled pilots and probably better fighters (certainly longer ranged.) Despite the long war on the Eastern Front, the tactics of cooperation between western Air and Ground forces was probably superior to the Russians. Besides, I've just remembered that the Russians imported a lot of Aluminium via lend-lease, which was mainly used by their aircraft industry.

(v) One does assume that the relevant western generals would at least ask Wehrmacht commanders like von Manstein and Guderian about their experiences on the Eastern Front. They might even be taken along as advisors!


Still all this does depend on an extraordinarily unlikely level of public support. It's on this one factor that almost all extrapolations of "Patton's charge" founder.

If anyone really does want to wargame (read boardgame) it, try ADGs "Patton in Flames", which is exactly what it says it is-either a 1945 or 1948 capitalist/communist showdown!

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Good post EoE.

Uhoh, now you have tickled me pink, and I gotta reply – even though I suppose we more or less agree?

(I) True, but an offensive that has to stop after five or ten miles (I know I'm probably exaggerating) is almost worse than none at all in many cases. All you've done is effectively created a WWI style salient in an era of mechanised forces. This is fine for spoiling attacks, but the Russians would need to be able to do more than that to win such a conflict.

Five to ten miles is a tad short, but even if the Soviets had to push the Germans back instead of slicing through them, they would still be able to win the war – it would just take longer.
In fact the ensuing battle of attrition might have worked in the Soviets favour, if the Germans responded with similar positional tactics – given Hitlers preference for solid defence instead of mobile defence, it is probably not too unlikely that they would have dug-in.

(II) Actually you're right, we were scraping the bottom of the barrel. But after the 1945 Russian offensive, I'm damned sure the Soviets were too. Berlin alone cost them well over half a million casualties.

Yep, it seems most of the Soviet units late in the war were at half strength or less. But still, given the incredible number of units they had available the Allies would have to significantly outperform German performance early in the war just to be able to fight on equal terms.

(III) Atomic bombs. Perhaps I overstated the numbers, although production could certainly have been ramped up over 1945 levels. Certainly MacArthur was counting on several (and the figure I can remember is thirty) being available for Coronet, from which one presumes a larger stockpile would have been available for Olympic. Besides, even a few would have been markedly effective against Soviet armoured formations, particularly if concentrated for their own offensive operations against the Allies.

Hannibal Barca – were are you, when we need solid numbers?
Obviously nuclear bombs are devastating weapons, but the yield of early nuclear bombs was quite small (10 kts IIRC), and loading/planning took quite some time, so it would have been hard to use them in the tactical manner nuclear warheads can be used today.
A single bomb might have been able to take out a Soviet tank division or even a Corps if massed for attack, but you’d still need quite a few to stop the 5th Guards Tank Army flat on its tracks.

(IV) I probably do underestimate the quality of Soviet airpower slightly. However, the Allied airforces are far superior in number, with equivalently skilled pilots and probably better fighters (certainly longer ranged.) Despite the long war on the Eastern Front, the tactics of cooperation between western Air and Ground forces was probably superior to the Russians. Besides, I've just remembered that the Russians imported a lot of Aluminium via lend-lease, which was mainly used by their aircraft industry.

I am sure that the Allied airforce was superior. I just wonder how superior and how big an impact that would have on the ground war.

While I agree that the Allies probably were better at air/ground co-operation, the Soviets were not bungling amateurs either. Certainly the Sturmovik was quite a fearsome aircraft, and it was used pretty skillfully.

(v) One does assume that the relevant western generals would at least ask Wehrmacht commanders like von Manstein and Guderian about their experiences on the Eastern Front. They might even be taken along as advisors!

And they would have loved every second of it! In the TOAW scenario I mentioned earlier in this thread I allowed for a small portion of a de-nazified Wehrmacht to join the allies. Can’t say it made much of a difference for my conclusion.

If anyone really does want to wargame (read boardgame) it, try ADGs "Patton in Flames", which is exactly what it says it is-either a 1945 or 1948 capitalist/communist showdown!

Sounds like fun. Does it cover the entire theatre or "just" an army group or army under Patton?

Regards,

EoE

PS: I’m going away for a week of sun, fun, love and diving in the Greek archipelago with the girl of my life – so take your time.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Just to throw in another idea for this hypothetical conflict, how many Germans would have joined the Allied side, giving them some very experienced soldiers. Kurt Meyer(12th SS) was brought to Canada after the war to make up a battle paln for the defence of the Canadian Arctic against the Russians.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Trooper
Just to throw in another idea for this hypothetical conflict, how many Germans would have joined the Allied side, giving them some very experienced soldiers. Kurt Meyer(12th SS) was brought to Canada after the war to make up a battle paln for the defence of the Canadian Arctic against the Russians.

After the official discovery of the concentration camps it would probably have been very difficult for the allies politically to deploy large numbers of German troops - especially as separate large formation (army, army groups etc.)

Besides, they would probably have to refit and retrain them with heavy equipment from the Allies.

I believe it would have been easier to deploy German troops in a scenario, where the Soviets decided to continue their attack and swallow the rest of Germany. It would have given the German soldier a reason to fight, and it would have given the Allied troops and public a good reason to fight alongside their former enemies.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(3865)]

The French used quite a few Germans in the Foreign Legion and I think the Allies would have used Germans in such a conflict. Look at how fast the US and Russia created armies in their respective portions of Germany. In the early stages it would have been easier to leave the Germans with their own weapons. The promise of reuniting Germany would have been an incentive to keep fighting. There were some in Germany who up to the end thought the Germans and Allies would join to defeat the Russians.

 

[Doomdark]

A single bomb might have been able to take out a Soviet tank division or even a Corps if massed for attack,

...or Stalin.

I think you grossly underestimate the importance of the A-bomb. Atomics alone would have won the war against Russia - even a few would have sufficed.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Doomdark


...or Stalin.

I think you grossly underestimate the importance of the A-bomb. Atomics alone would have won the war against Russia - even a few would have sufficed.

Assuming that the Soviets would surrender after Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kharkov, Minsk, Kiev etc. had been utterly destroyed and more or less leveled to the ground. They didn't the first time around.

If you suggest a tactical use of nuclear bombs, I claim that it was unpracticable once operations were fluid. You didn't "just" drop nuclear bombs in those days. It took quite some careful transport, planning, loading etc. The whole thing took too long to be practical on any less than an operational level.
Besides, while a nuclear bomb is a fearsome weapon, the actual damage radius of early bombs (once you learn the troops a few easy countermeasures), is not the kind of Armageddon we generally believe it to be.
I also claim that the Allies had far too few nuclear bombs in 1945 to have any significant military impact besides the psychological.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Trooper
The French used quite a few Germans in the Foreign Legion and I think the Allies would have used Germans in such a conflict. Look at how fast the US and Russia created armies in their respective portions of Germany. In the early stages it would have been easier to leave the Germans with their own weapons. The promise of reuniting Germany would have been an incentive to keep fighting. There were some in Germany who up to the end thought the Germans and Allies would join to defeat the Russians.

The first soldiers in the Westgerman Bundeswehr took their oath the 12th of November 1955 - more than 10 years after WWII and in a totally different political climate than in 1945.

I know that enough Pz-IV's and Sg-III's survived the war to equip the Syrian and Israeli(?) armies, but I am not sure that enough heavy weaponry existed in Germany in 1945 to allow a buildup of a credible German force.

IMHO no more than a few divisions would have been raised. And they would fight under strict Allied command, not as autonomous formations.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Look man, if you are going to use facts, I don't want to argue

I do agree with you mostly but I think the Allies and Russians would have forced conquered nations to fight again, although not as true national forces but like SS divisions from occupied Europe on the Eastern front. Of course we can never prove this one way or other.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

I did forget to mention that the SS division were volunteers, but I think some Germans would have volunteered with the hope of getting out of war crimes.

 

[Doomdark]

I also claim that the Allies had far too few nuclear bombs in 1945 to have any significant military impact besides the psychological.

Well, the psychological impact is pretty damned important, don't you think? As the Japanese can tell you... As for military impact, how about dropping an A-bomb on the Kremlin while the Mustachioed One is berating his underlings? Or perhaps the industries in the Urals, or any other critical site.

Face it, not even the Soviet Union could have stood up to an enemy who could drop an A-bomb on a choice target every two or three weeks.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Ah well, the Greek island of Skiathos is calling...

See ya all.

EoE

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Sounds like fun. Does it cover the entire theatre or "just" an army group or army under Patton?

When you return EoE.

Patton in Flames is a variant of ADG's "World in Flames", it uses the same maps and if you own both and the latest annual you can even play it out as a continuous timeline from the beginning of WWII (actually, including another game "Days of Decision II, you can take it from 1936.) If you want to conquer the world, and I mean the entire world, as the Communists or the West, it's for you.

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

On the other hand, it's got the most criticised naval system of its' ilk, and some afficionados have campaigns where they play once a week for six or nine months or more just to finish a game (particularly using most of the optional rules), so you need some time to play!

On topic,
I suspect we would have been rely on a fairly large number of German recruits, particularly among the officer corps. Still you're right, are levels of disagreement are not particularly extreme.


I trust you have/had a good holiday.

 

[Dark Knight]

On the subject of Allied manpower, wouldn't the US and Britain have been able to draw on a tremendous amount of labour and even soldiers from the parts of Europe under their control, even excluding Germany. Since France lost relatively few soldiers, it should have been able to contribute substantial numbers of troops and it might have been possible to utilize Italians, although this might pose some of the same political problems as German troops (to a lesser extent, though).

Also, has anyone considered the problems with partisan troops that the Soviets would experience in their occupied territories in the event of a new war? After all, even after the German surrender in '45 the Soviets had to spend years chasing down partisans in the Ukraine.