Europe under extreme duress

[Griz882]

I’m going to have to fall to the side of the USSR always being a weak player. In WWII they wasted millions of lives primarily because they were technically and tactically incompetent. Had the Germans been even slightly skilled at logistics (and not had a nut in charge of strategy) the war would have been an entirely different affair - although the outcome would have remained the same. After the creation of NATO the Soviets never stood a chance. They were (and remain) weak at the use of air power and their command system has always been too rigid to allow for the independence of most NATO units. As I have mentioned before, the Soviets had remarkable artillery capability that relied on mass rather than accuracy - but artillery alone isn’t enough.

 

[Random8145]

I will disagree. From the end of WW2 until the widespread development and use of precision weapons, NATO would have had a very difficult time stopping multiple Soviet tank armies deployed on a scale that dwarfs what is being used in Ukraine. 52,000 tanks….

Warsaw Pact - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Our technology advantage is in design - but vulnerable due semiconductors being manufactured overseas (particularly TMSC in Taiwan) as well as the refining of rare earth metals in China.

Well a question though is did the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact possess the logistics to actually field 52,000 tanks in any real capacity. There's a HUGE amount of logistics to that. The Israelis when attacked in 1967 faced off against superior numbers of tanks and troops but still beat them back.

I believe we could refine rare earth metals here, it is more an issue of economics not of lack of them being here and in other friendly areas.

 

[Random8145]

I’m going to have to fall to the side of the USSR always being a weak player. In WWII they wasted millions of lives primarily because they were technically and tactically incompetent. Had the Germans been even slightly skilled at logistics (and not had a nut in charge of strategy) the war would have been an entirely different affair - although the outcome would have remained the same. After the creation of NATO the Soviets never stood a chance. They were (and remain) weak at the use of air power and their command system has always been too rigid to allow for the independence of most NATO units. As I have mentioned before, the Soviets had remarkable artillery capability that relied on mass rather than accuracy - but artillery alone isn’t enough.

They wasted millions of lives because Stalin had shot and arrested so many of the skilled and intelligent military officers and generals. He basically decapitated the Soviet military. As the war went on, they became more skilled and by the end of the war, they had quite a lot of skilled generals and officers. Operationally, they were a good deal more skilled than the Germans. So I mean the idea that Soviet forces would have done poorly against NATO forces because they initially did so poorly against German forces I think is a big oversimplification. Also Hitler was actually quite intelligent regarding military strategy. The idea of Germany losing because of the "idiot corporal" in charge is more a myth perpetuated by the German generals after the war.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I love Julia - brilliant, hot and funny

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507546231827955712

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

52,000 tanks….

...with no proper radio comms between them. On some Soviet Navy and Coast Guard riverine armored patrol craft I used to touch the stardard tank radiosets, R-105 and R-123, HF voice radio with no scrambling device, awfully poor in quality. T-55, -62 and -64 had one such set each, with no portable equivalent, nor VHF/UHF tactical radio, just this one HF set. HF on tanks, which meant they supposed far dash from staff and logistics tail, hoping to precerve the link back, but very often in vain. Just imagine how poor was the comm in battle even when whip antenna was intact. It wasn't unheard of when it lost transmitting or receiving ability (or both) after a couple of shots from its own gun. My father was T-55 Army ROTC Lt platoon leader (three tanks) for two obligatory years after college graduation and he's still telling me the stories how he stood out of turret waist-tall in hatch and windmilled by hands to communicate to two other tanks of platoon since his radio failed. He is pretty sure Arab tank disasters in 1967 and 1973 were directly connected to the total loss of C2 on battlefields due to the poorest radio the militaries ever had. Soviet-made ass-buzzer indeed

 

[Griz882]

Operationally, they were a good deal more skilled than the Germans. So I mean the idea that Soviet forces would have done poorly against NATO forces because they initially did so poorly against German forces I think is a big oversimplification. Also Hitler was actually quite intelligent regarding military strategy. The idea of Germany losing because of the "idiot corporal" in charge is more a myth perpetuated by the German generals after the war.

Hands down, absolutely disagree. Most amateurs make the mistake of thinking of the war in geographic terms that are disconnected when they weren’t. The Soviets advanced simply and with clumsy moves only because allied air power from England and North Africa ground the German war machine to a nub. I’ll add again, in case you missed it, the Germans were crap at logistics (that is the fault of the generals) and Hitler’s lack of a comprehensive strategy made that weakness even worse.

Nikita Khrushchev agrees…"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoir, "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."

Setting aside the 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks the U.S. sent the Soviet Union long before a shadow of a Japanese airplane passed over Pearl Harbor, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and most of the steel used to craft the T-34 tank.

Once the U.S. entered the war they almost immediately drained over half the Luftwaffe (absolutely critical to the Soviet victory) nearly the entire Kriegsmarine (even more critical), and over 1/4 of the Nazis ground forces out of the Soviet sphere. There is no doubt the Soviets won their portion of the war, and spent a lot of lives in getting there, but they did so on the shoulders of American workers, allied forces, and without any real tactical or strategic acumen.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and most of the steel used to craft the T-34 tank.

Chemical stuff for powder producing. Just listen: 78% (seventy eight per cents) of gun powder manufactured in USSR 1942-1945 made from the precursors supplied by Allies. Thus USSR could make fucking Mongolian crowd of T-34s without your help, but with bayonets as the only weapon in use by them all. Never too late to say once again: great thanks for your grandparents for this critical help.

 

[Gatordev]

I'm really starting to wonder if the invasion, as it was originally planned, was meant to be a field training exercise. Troops amass and train at the border, they then invade and roll over the Ukranian forces while giving the Russian troops combat experience. Once established in the centers, and with a logistics train setup in the northeast, Russian forces can occupy and regroup.

Meanwhile, NATO was thought to not be as cohesive, and because the invasion would have been relatively quick, the West would start to lose interest and move on. The Russian aristocracy had been preparing for sanctions by moving some of their money out of western hands in anticipation of the sanctions.

Fast-forward a couple of years and the senior soldiers have left, but the juniors have moved up and still have that combat experience. And then it would be time to decide if they moved on to the next country like Maldovia, thus continuing to bring Russia back as a super-power that it thinks it is.

Obviously it hasn't played out this way, no doubt from the complete lack of honest assessment of its own forces, coupled with a population that's defending its homeland....along with some pretty unified (for the moment) NATO forces helping as best it can.

 

[taxi1]

Obviously it hasn't played out this way, no doubt from the complete lack of honest assessment of its own forces, coupled with a population that's defending its homeland....along with some pretty unified (for the moment) NATO forces helping as best it can.

It’s amazing just how magnificently wrong the Russians were about how they thought things would work out.

Russia’s biggest challenge long-term is demographic. This has to be an even worse disaster from that perspective.

 

[Griz882]

Putin’s apparent “strategic” shift from a direct assault to the Donbas is an interesting spark at the end long tunnel. Maybe, maybe, he sees this as his so-called off ramp and is willing to sacrifice 10,000 soldiers and call it a win if the Ukrainians agree to give up that land in exchange for peace. I’m not sure if the Ukrainian government or people are up for that but time is clearly running out for the economic scene (my guess is about two weeks before major parts of the global foundation start to fall off).

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Maybe, maybe, he sees this as his so-called off ramp and is willing to sacrifice 10,000 soldiers and call it a win if the Ukrainians agree to give up that land in exchange for peace.

First deputy of Chief of Gen Staff of Russian armed forces yesterday dropped a hint that if Donbass will be free from Ukranian forces, they will state their aims achieved so they may be ready for truce. Hard decision for Zelenskiy, but a way to stop the war. If he will get NATO promises to establish no-fly over the rest of Ukraine right after egress of UA forces from Donbass, I think he may agree. Will the NATO promise that, that is the question...

 

[Random8145]

Hands down, absolutely disagree. Most amateurs make the mistake of thinking of the war in geographic terms that are disconnected when they weren’t. The Soviets advanced simply and with clumsy moves only because allied air power from England and North Africa ground the German war machine to a nub. I’ll add again, in case you missed it, the Germans were crap at logistics (that is the fault of the generals) and Hitler’s lack of a comprehensive strategy made that weakness even worse.

Oh I agree that the Germans were crap at logistics, but otherwise, I would have to disagree. For one, this applies both ways, i.e. the only reason the Western Allied nations did as well as they did was due to the Soviets fighting the vast brunt of the German war machine. Neither side would have defeated the Germans conventionally on their own. But second, the Soviets did not advance simply and with clumsy moves, far from it. Initially, yes, they were clumsy, and tactically speaking, they remained rather inferior to the Germans throughout the war. The quality of the average Soviet soldier did not generally match that of the average German. But operationally, they proved themselves to be outright superior to the Germans. At Moscow, they moved a huge force into place without the Germans even being aware of it and counter-attacked. Then they did the same at Stalingrad, moving multiple armies into place without the Germans being aware. Then they did the same again at Kursk, and the same again regarding Operation Bagration, where they annihilated German Army Group Center.

Nikita Khrushchev agrees…"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoir, "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."

Setting aside the 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks the U.S. sent the Soviet Union long before a shadow of a Japanese airplane passed over Pearl Harbor, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and most of the steel used to craft the T-34 tank.

Once the U.S. entered the war they almost immediately drained over half the Luftwaffe (absolutely critical to the Soviet victory) nearly the entire Kriegsmarine (even more critical), and over 1/4 of the Nazis ground forces out of the Soviet sphere. There is no doubt the Soviets won their portion of the war, and spent a lot of lives in getting there, but they did so on the shoulders of American workers, allied forces, and without any real tactical or strategic acumen.

I have seen that Khrushchev quote and agree, however Lend-Lease did not really kick into high-gear until later in the war. The Germans invaded the Soviet Union June 22, 1941. Pearl Harbor was December 7, 1941. The U.S. did not send over all that war material in that amount of time. The U.S. war machine wasn't even in high-gear yet. The first M4 "Sherman" tanks for example were not even ready for war until 1942. Their first use was in July 1942 in North Africa. During this period, the U.S. was concerned with supplying itself and the British most. The first Lend-Lease contributor to the Soviets actually was the British I believe. Initially, the United States was reluctant to send any major war material to the Soviets as the opinion of the U.S. and British was that the Soviet Union was going to collapse and so sending war equipment would likely have just meant supplying the Germans. It was only when the Soviets showed that they were not going to fall that Lend-Lease began to pick up. This began to show two days before Pearl Harbor on December 5th when they counter-attacked the Germans at Moscow. It majorly picked up in late 1943.

Also, the Soviets absolutely had tactical and strategic acumen, although more strategic. They had a lot of very brilliant generals.

 

[Random8145]

Chemical stuff for powder producing. Just listen: 78% (seventy eight per cents) of gun powder manufactured in USSR 1942-1945 made from the precursors supplied by Allies. Thus USSR could make fucking Mongolian crowd of T-34s without your help, but with bayonets as the only weapon in use by them all. Never too late to say once again: great thanks for your grandparents for this critical help.

Another thing supplied was an extreme cold weather lubricant, which was manufactured in New Jersey. Only the U.S. had the know-how to manufacture it, but it allowed the Soviets to operate their equipment in the extreme cold.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

At Moscow, they moved a huge force into place without the Germans even being aware of it and counter-attacked.

Not "they". This and other noted cases - George Zhukov, a master of strategical deception. Sole person who was indeed genious. Kinda Napoleon in Russian body, absolutely brilliant on the land, he never understood the Soviet Navy and was afraid of it. Two more of the breed - Konstantin Rokossovskiy (Polish blood) and Rodion Malinovskiy (south Ukranian blood) - were essentially tactical masters.

 

[Random8145]

I'm really starting to wonder if the invasion, as it was originally planned, was meant to be a field training exercise. Troops amass and train at the border, they then invade and roll over the Ukranian forces while giving the Russian troops combat experience. Once established in the centers, and with a logistics train setup in the northeast, Russian forces can occupy and regroup.

Meanwhile, NATO was thought to not be as cohesive, and because the invasion would have been relatively quick, the West would start to lose interest and move on. The Russian aristocracy had been preparing for sanctions by moving some of their money out of western hands in anticipation of the sanctions.

Fast-forward a couple of years and the senior soldiers have left, but the juniors have moved up and still have that combat experience. And then it would be time to decide if they moved on to the next country like Maldovia, thus continuing to bring Russia back as a super-power that it thinks it is.

Obviously it hasn't played out this way, no doubt from the complete lack of honest assessment of its own forces, coupled with a population that's defending its homeland....along with some pretty unified (for the moment) NATO forces helping as best it can.

I had linked to a journalist in a prior post who had written some about this, that in Russia, the military is held in a low position. They make sure to put inept officers in charge because to have a capable military would be dangerous to the regime. And they do not want any major military conflict because then the generals can become heroes to the public and gain a lot of loyalty of the troops along with combat experience, so again a major political threat. So Russia is instead a state security regime. State security forces can put down resistances and minor uprisings and so forth, and can use the military to do the same in other countries where they expect minimal resistance.

A second problem is that because of fear of Putin, his intelligence tells him what he wants to here. So Putin's FSB head in charge of intelligence on Ukraine told him that the people there are very pro-Russian, and so no major military force needed to really try taking the country. So (using the words of the journalist) what has happened is that the Russian State Security folk have accidentally stumbled into an actual war, which is not something they know how to conduct and now don't know what to do.