 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: RE: Soviet Army was much bigger than the Allied Army... posted by Tom Brennan on June 25, 2007 at 17:56:56
From Wikipedia:
World War Two
At the outbreak of World War II, the Russian military was not yet at a level of readiness suitable for winning a war: Stalin had said in 1931 that Russian industry was "50 to 100 years behind" [1] the Western powers. By the end of the war, Russian aircraft production outstripped that of Germany- Soviet aircraft production is estimated to have risen to an impressive 4,700 aircraft at this time.
In 1939, the VVS used its bombers to attack Finland in the Winter War, but the losses inflicted on them by the relatively small Finnish army showed the shortcomings of these forces, mainly due to the Great Purge in the 1930s.
The main reason of the great number of aircraft lost was not the lack of modern tactics, but time to improve them was short, because the German offensive of 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) pushed the air force into a defensive position, while being confronted with more modern German aircraft. In the early days of Operation Barbarossa the Luftwaffe destroyed some 2000 Soviet aircraft, at a loss of only 35 planes (of which 15 were non-combat-related).[2]
As with many allied countries in the Second World War the Soviet Union received western aircraft by lend-lease.
There was Soviet Volunteer Group in China before 1941.
Having failed to achieve victory in the Soviet Union in 1941 or 1942, the Luftwaffe was drawn into a war of attrition which would extend to North Africa and the Channel Front. The entry of the United States into the war and the resurgence of the Royal Air Force's (RAF) offensive power created the Home Front, known as Defense of the Reich operations. The Luftwaffe's strength was slowly erroded and by 1944 had virtually disappeared from the skies of Western Europe leaving the German Army to fight without air support. It continued to fight into the last days of the war with revolutionary new jet fighters in small numbers, such as the Messerschmitt Me 262, Messerschmitt Me 163 and the Heinkel He 162, even though the war was already hopelessly lost.
Follow Ups:
What do think happened to the Soviet Union after they survived the initial onslaught ? They ramped up the vast Soviet natural resources to put together tremendous war production capacity. By the end of the war they building warplanes, tanks, artillery, ammunition, etc at a far higher rate than the rate of destruction at the hands of the Wehrmacht and probably at a higher rate than the American military buildup.
What everyone glosses over is the Soviet Union took on arguably the World's finest war machine (and probably 80% of the Wehrmacht, the rest being spread over the piddly Western and southern fronts fighting the Americans/Britsh) toe-to-toe for three (3) years and eventually beat them with sheer numbers. Vast numbers of battle-hardened troops who would have certainly given the Americans a tough fight. "Normandy" ? "Battle of the Bulge" ? mere sideshows compared to the battles on the Eastern front (e.g. Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow).
I think the gist of the article is that at the beginning of the German invasion, Russia lost a lot of planes. After the U.S. landed in Europe, combined with Germanies failed assault on England, Germanies air force was basically a non-factor through the rest of the war. The argument that the Soviets ended the Luftwaffe is specious. When the German air force was crippled, the Soviets were able to build their air force, and the U.S. gave them planes. Further, the Soviet's victories on the ground can be attributed to a significant degree to the lack of the German air force to protect their ground troops once the U.S. and the British essentially ended the Luftwaffe.
However, having planes is not the same thing as having a lethal air force. The argument that their pilots were as capable as those of the U.S. and the British, which is as, if not more, important than the number of planes a country possesses, is wrong. That, I think, is the gist of the article.
which source is only as good as the people who contributed to it.
Here's a link to one historian's take on the Eastern front battles:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1373719.htm
Below is a link to a book on the Eastern front air warfare which looks to be worth reading.
- The eastern front consumed over half of the German Luftwaffe's frontline strength from June 1941 (Open in New Window)
The first article you reference seems to support my view. Relative to the portion which discusses the relative air forces, apparently Stalin felt he needed American bomber support, and apparently the American bombing in Germany diverted German aircraft from the S.U., aiding the Soviets in their fight against the Germans on the ground. And Stalin needed American bomber help, why?
I fail to see how what you quote from Wikipedia contradicts what I said. I have better sources at my disposal than Wikipedia by the way.
The Red Army was weak and ill prepared in 1941. By 1944 it had improved and was the best. That's the march of time.
v
May I suggest you and Mr. Garvin go to your nearest Borders or B&N and purchase a copy of Max Hastings' Armageddon which is an excellent account of the fighting in Europe from mid-44 through to the end the war.
Hastings, a leading military historian and former editor of the UK's Daily Telegraph and an unlikely closet Stalinist, examines all the main combatants and their armies and pretty much offers the same judgement as Mr. Brennan does - that the Red Army was probably the best of the ground armies by the end. The Wehrmacht was possibly superior at it's peak (pre-Stalingrad) and he gives the edge in overall generalship to the Germans. He doesn't have very much good to say about the Western Armies (US, British, French), troops or generals with the exception of Patton.
I've also recently read Anthony Bevor's book about the fall of Berlin & he does seem to concur re the quality and power of the Soviet armies late in the war.
PS BTW re Soviet air power, I think the air ace with highest numbers of kills in aerial combat on all sides, in all theatres of WW2, is a Soviet fighter pilot. Need to check on this.
The issue is not the superiority of the ground troops. The issue is the superiority of the air force. I posited that the Soviet air force was no match for the U.S. and the British air forces. Particularly if they are combined.
Let's look at what happened in Japan. The U.S. planned a ground invasion of Japan, and the generals determined there was only one place on the island that enough ground troops could land for an invasion of Japan. For some unexplained reason, prior to the planned invasion, Japan fortified that area (I believe it was on the Southwest corner of the island) prior to the invasion. At that point, the generals went back to Truman, informed him of the movement, and determined that to land in that area with the fortified troops would now cause many times the losses of life which were lost on Normandy.
Truman then determined that the cost of American life was too high, and decided to drop the bomb. Relevance? Japan's location and troop strenghts precluded an invasion. But there were other ways to skin the cat. Drop the bomb. All the troop strength in the world would not counteract the effect of such a device. The bomb forced Japan to capitulate. I doubt they knew how many devices the U.S. had - they only knew that IF the U.S. had another, there was no way for them to prevent another bomb because of the U.S.s superior air force and navy.
Now, move to Europe. While a ground invasion against the Soviets would have been bloody as hell, and victory questionable, the Soviets know that the U.S. has a techonology they do not possess, and, because of a superior navy, a means of delivery they do not possess. Let's assume another bomb is in the offing. Given the U.S. and British superiority in the sky and on the water, I postulate there is not much the Soviets could have done to prevent the U.S. dropping one on Moscow. If they had the will. Which Truman did not.
At the end of the day, the Soviets were handed Eastern Block countries as a spoil of war - hey they lost a lot, let's give them some countries in return. Nobody has yet to comment on whether a country should be rewarded in such a fashion.
"PS BTW re Soviet air power, I think the air ace with highest numbers of kills in aerial combat on all sides, in all theatres of WW2, is a Soviet fighter pilot. Need to check on this. "
Sure. Kobe Bryant scores a ton of points. Where are the Lakers?
American/British air power at the end of the war ? Upon what basis do you make this assessment ? Granted instead of fighting Luftwaffe aircraft, the Soviet Union would be engaging P51s and B-17s. If Soviet fighter aircraft outnumbered their Allie counterparts 10:1, there would have been zero chance of B29s with nukes getting anywhere near Warsaw, let alone Moscow. Come back to us when you've crunched the numbers.
It's all moot anyway, there wasn't a fight.
My kids can count. They can't reason. Most of the time, reasoning is more important. So here goes. The Soviet air force, at the beginning of the war, was years behind technologically. At least according to Stalin. The U.S. gave the S.U. aircraft under the Lend-lease. Those are facts. If the Soviet air force was all that, no need for Stalin's statement, and no need for loaners. Therefore, the air force was lacking. If there is no air force to speak of, there are no pilots to speak of, because, well, on what do they train? That is called reasoning.
Consequently, at the beginning of the war, the S.U. air force is not equivalent to the U.S. and Britain air force. Britain gave the Luftwaffe more than it could handle in the Battle of Britain. Remember, the Luftwaffe, at the beginning of the battle with the S.U., gave the S.U. heavy losses. That is fact. Britain's air force gave the Luftwaffe heavy losses. That is fact. Consequently, the Royal Air Force was better than the Soviet air force. That is reasoning. Same thing that tells me San Antonio is a better team than Detroit, though they never faced each other in the finals.
Both the Royal and U.S. Air forces were responsible for putting the final nails in the Luftwaffe, which is fact. Consequently, their air forces were superior to the Luftwaffe, which were also superior to the S.U. air force, which had been defeated by the Luftwaffe. Reasoning.
After the Luftwaffe were neutralized, the S.U. built a lot of planes. Fact. However, they had not many experienced pilots, because their air force was not a factor during the war, as the Luftwaffe were largely neutralized when they re-built their air force, and, to the best of my knowledge, they never fought the Japanese, so there was little combat experience. As opposed the Britain and the U.S. Reasoning.
I could likely cite the numbers of planes each side owned, but how to quantify the combined years of combat experience of their respective pilots? Flight time? Kills? Skill? You may be the same person who looks at the U.S. News and World Report's edition on colleges, finds the college with the most volumes in the library, and concludes that is the best college. Crunching numbers are easy. Thinking is difficult because it requires real work. Get back to me when you are ready to think instead of regurgitate.
"It's all moot anyway, there wasn't a fight."
Then why are you posting?
s
The Soviets had built a LOT of airplanes to provide tactical support for ground operations on the Eastern front. And dont' discount the expertise and experience of those who flew those airplanes against the Luftwaffe for years.
You continue to discount the magnitude of the battles on the Eastern front; I wouldn't be so quick to totally dismiss Soviet Air capabilities vs. the Allies. Necessity drove large improvements in Soviet miliary aircraft capabilities during WWII. Even today, MIGs and SUs are still some of the best combat airframes even today. The US only edge is in Stealth and electronics technologies.
Surely the knowledge and generosity of the Wiki is universally admired and acknowledged or else the world will come tumbling down...
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
