Posted: 1/17/2013 6:51:20 AM EDT
"In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better." Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger." |
|
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa.
ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. |
|
Quoted: The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. Yep, Marshal Tukhachevsky and his theory of Deep Operations. He was a victim of the Great Purge, and even though his thinking was put aside for a few years, it eventually came full circle. See Operation Bagration and the destruction of the German Army Group Center Summer 1944. |
|
Do you happen to know the difference in organization and size of US formations (Division, Coprs, Army) versus Soviet Organization? I would guess no. Also, +1 on the lend lease comment earlier. The Soviets never would have made it to Germany without lend lease. Over 60% ot their trucks and more than half of their rail stock were provided by Uncle Sam. About 80% of their quality 105 and up octane AVGAS was also provided by the US. See link below for the rest of the story, it is truly mind boggling http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html |
|
Quoted: Do you happen to know the difference in organization and size of US formations (Division, Coprs, Army) versus Soviet Organization? I would guess no. Also, +1 on the lend lease comment earlier. The Soviets never would have made it to Germany without lend lease. Over 60% ot their trucks and more than half of their rail stock were provided by Uncle Sam. About 80% of their quality 105 and up octane AVGAS was also provided by the US. See link below for the rest of the story, it is truly mind boggling http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html Yes I do actually, a Soviet division was roughly equal to a US Corps, the Soviets still had IIRC 2.5-3 to 1 advantage over the Western Allies in the Summer of '45. |
|
Quoted:
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. When did Stalin's purge take place? When did Patton make the above statement? |
|
While I respect Patton, I think he was wrong on this point. Shermans against T-34's?
The Russians had tons of arty and had much more experience fighting a tough ground war than the Americans. The only way we could have won? Turn the outlying republics against their Russian masters. One of the big mistakes the Germans made. Having millions of Ukranians on our side instead of against us. |
|
Quoted:
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. Do you think the Russians wrote the book on combined arms warfare? I have always thought they expanded on what the Germans did and took it to the next level. Most of the large scale tank battles between Russia and Germany were tank on tank. Tanks were used to break through, then infantry would exploit the breakthrough. Basically the same as cavalry tactics. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. When did Stalin's purge take place? When did Patton make the above statement? Senior Soviet officers had to play catch-up while they learned the art of war via OJT fighting the Germans, but by 1945 they were fully capable of taking on the U.S. Army. They didn't lack for cannon or cannon fodder to sacrifice for the Motherland. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. Do you think the Russians wrote the book on combined arms warfare? I have always thought they expanded on what the Germans did and took it to the next level. Most of the large scale tank battles between Russia and Germany were tank on tank. Tanks were used to break through, then infantry would exploit the breakthrough. Basically the same as cavalry tactics. Look up Soviet Deep Battle. |
|
The Brits and the French would have left us in a a heart beat. They were bankrupt, short of manpower and just plain tired. A good chunk of the American Army was also ready for the war to end and would have been less than enthused about marching on Moscow. By 1945 the Soviets were as good as anyone in the world. They out numbered us, their artillery was first rate, the tanks far better than ours, their tactics sound.
Patton was over rated. The only reason we have this discussion is a third rate movie. |
|
Quoted:
http://www.nndb.com/people/975/000024903/patton-crop.jpg "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better." Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger." How strong are they today? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.nndb.com/people/975/000024903/patton-crop.jpg "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better." Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger." How strong are they today? So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They totally outnumbered us, and while they were war weary, the supply lines from Rusia to Berlin were a lot shorter than NYC to Berlin. Proud how fast the Americans went from Normandy to Germany? That is because most of the German forces were fighting the Soviets. Maybe nukes could have helped America beat up on the Soviets, but probably only if Moscow and Stalin had died in the first strike. |
| Not sure how the president could have sold the American public, after all the loss and sacrifice, that we needed to turn our guns on our allies and march east. It would have been disaster for us. Financially, in human terms, and politically. Instead of Eisenhower being elected after the war, we'd have had a pacifist elected who wanted to stop the war. Say goodbye to all that prosperity we enjoyed in the '50s. All our capital would have been spent fighting the Soviets in an all out war. No thanks. |
|
A few points:
Shermans at that point of the war (Easy 8's, Jumbos, etc) were equal or better than T-34's. Shermans vs T-34s in Korea show this. As for the JS-IIIs, the M-26 Pershings were being fielded in Europe, and the British were close to fielding Centurion. Russian artillery, though massive in quantity, could only achieve volumes of fire by lining up the guns wheel to wheel. American artillery could do so with dispersed tubes. We also had perfected the proximity fuze, which made all artillery (air to ground and air to air) more lethal. Russian air forces could not have flown without US provided aviation fuel and aluminum. They also had never gone up against a foe (US and Allied air forces) who could not only match them in numbers, but exceed them in capabilities. The Il-2 was a good attack plane, but Jugs carried better ordnance (bombs and rockets), were just as durable and were a fighter A/C. Russian Air Forces of 1945 had no counter to the B-29 (until the late 40's when they built their own), the Meteor, or the P-80 (which was just coming off production lines). |
|
Quoted:
Not sure how the president could have sold the American public, after all the loss and sacrifice, that we needed to turn our guns on our allies and march east. It would have been disaster for us. Financially, in human terms, and politically. Instead of Eisenhower being elected after the war, we'd have had a pacifist elected who wanted to stop the war. Say goodbye to all that prosperity we enjoyed in the '50s. All our capital would have been spent fighting the Soviets in an all out war. No thanks. This. I don't think people understand the significance of this picture and how America desperately wanted to be done fighting. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. When did Stalin's purge take place? When did Patton make the above statement? Senior Soviet officers had to play catch-up while they learned the art of war via OJT fighting the Germans, but by 1945 they were fully capable of taking on the U.S. Army. They didn't lack for cannon or cannon fodder to sacrifice for the Motherland. Understood.......But in hindsight, I can't help but to question if Gen Patton was a forward thinker? As in, Thomas X Hammes' theory on the 'next war' and watching the current events unfold. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. Do you think the Russians wrote the book on combined arms warfare? I have always thought they expanded on what the Germans did and took it to the next level. Most of the large scale tank battles between Russia and Germany were tank on tank. Tanks were used to break through, then infantry would exploit the breakthrough. Basically the same as cavalry tactics. There were forward-thinking tacticians and strategists in most of the key industrialized nations at that time (France, Britain, Germany, the USSR, and the U.S.), attempting to shake off the old tactics that were outdated and useless, and trying to exploit the potential for the revolutionary technologies offered by more modern armor, air and artillery as they related to supporting the infantry (and which were become ever more practical). It seems to me that each nation had a different take on how to employ supporting arms, with the Germans believing in armor-centric maneuver elements leading the attack, supporting by air and arty, with mechanized infantry exploiting gaps in the enemy defense. IMO, the Germans were successful at the beginning of the war because they emphasized maneuver and speed, avoiding set-piece battles like Kursk in favor of penetrating deeply into the enemies territory where he wasn't prepared to defend. Entire armies were surrounded, cut off, and forced to surrender. They had the machines to do it, too-even if they weren't up-gunned PzKpfw IVs. German leadership and tactics outfought the poorly led Russians. They also started to field heavier, less maneuverable machines like the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, and tank destroyers like the Elephant that departed from the advantages offered by the original doctrine of "Blitzkreig". They began to abandon the correct balance between armor, firepower, and mobility. Heavily armored, with powerful main guns capable of penetrating the frontal armor of most Soviet tanks, they were also slower, more cumbersome, and more difficult to maintain under the duress of combat during the high tempo of offensive operations. The speed of attack was now limited to the slowest armor fielded in any given formation. The more lightly armored, mechanically reliable PzKpfw IV with the long 75mm main gun, and the various Sturmgeshutz tank destroyers (based on the PzKpfw III and IV hulls, plus some Czech designs adapted to the task) that offered sufficient mobility, reliability, and firepower were able to get the job done (and do so more economically, too) right up to the end of the war, but they wasted time, effort, and energy on machines incapable of exploiting speed and maneuver. The bottom line is, the Germans were ignoring their own lessons and theories, while the Russians were learning how to employ those very characteristics to their advantage. As the war went on, Germany became bogged down in Stalingrad with substantial losses they couldn't afford. Operation Citadel was a disaster for them as the Russians learned to meet German offensive operations with well thought-out and prepared defenses in depth. That's the key though-the Russians were learning. Officers that understood how to fight the Germans effectively rose up to command positions while the demand for political loyalties to the party were somewhat lessened as a requirement for promotion (thus opening up opportunities for more talented leaders). Not entirely, mind you, but enough to exploit the capabilities of men who had the intellectual capacity to adapt to fighting such a war. By the time the war ended, the Red Army had been on the offensive since Feb. of 1943. IMO, they would have rolled over the U.S. Army by shear numbers alone, and they had the numbers and experience to do so (costly for them as it may have been). |
|
Quoted:
JS III http://www.arrows.newmail.ru/gallery.files/is3.gif vs Sherman http://pattonarmy.free.fr/update-juin-2005/Sherman.jpg Tanks aren't much use when you control the sky. We had a better air force, not to mention the British would have been on our side in the war. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Soviets didn't lack for arty, and they practically wrote the book on combined arms warfare. If the purges of senior military officers hadn't taken place under the orders of Stalin before the war, the Germans wouldn't have been so successful for so long after the beginning of Barbarossa. ETA: Patton was full of shit, IMO. When did Stalin's purge take place? When did Patton make the above statement? Senior Soviet officers had to play catch-up while they learned the art of war via OJT fighting the Germans, but by 1945 they were fully capable of taking on the U.S. Army. They didn't lack for cannon or cannon fodder to sacrifice for the Motherland. Understood.......But in hindsight, I can't help but to question if Gen Patton was a forward thinker? As in, Thomas X Hammes' theory on the 'next war' and watching the current events unfold.
Patton wasn't an idiot, but I don't know enough about his pre-war theories to make a judgement one way or the other. I know he had a tremendous ego, and that he considered wearing ties in combat and the steel pot at all times (no matter how far in the rear his Soldiers were) a high priority. To me, he sounded like a tool, but he felt that the harder the war was fought, the sooner it would end, and the more lives that would be saved in the long run. Painful as it may have been for our troops, he was probably right. Unfortunately, he was also able to feed his ego at the cost of lives by doing so. On a side note, Omar "the tent maker" Bradly seemed a better officer to me-he certainly appeared more practical under casual observation. |
| A great man. As for the "Patton was wrong" crowd, let me know when you get your 4th star and what class at West Point you were in so we can compare your accomplishments to his. Oh I know you were in the corp/ USA for 4/6/20 years. You haven't fought jack fucking shit compared to him. No man, no general has faced off in a tank vs tank battle since he did it in the 1940's. not in Korea, Viet nam, Iraq or A'stan. You do not know what you speak of. If he said we could win, we by God could win. |
|
Quoted:
A great man. As for the "Patton was wrong" crowd, let me know when you get your 4th star and what class at West Point you were in so we can compare your accomplishments to his. Oh I know you were in the corp/ USA for 4/6/20 years. You haven't fought jack fucking shit compared to him. No man, no general has faced off in a tank vs tank battle since he did it in the 1940's. not in Korea, Viet nam, Iraq or A'stan. You do not know what you speak of. If he said we could win, we by God could win. 
Do you base your unintelligent babble on experience and study, or do you simply enjoy the spotlight that blathering on like some random idiot on the errornet offers you? When you know-or at least can pretend that you know-WTF you're talking about and have something intelligent to offer, feel free to join the adults having a discussion. Until then, kindly STFU, "Colonel". |
|
Quoted:
JS III http://www.arrows.newmail.ru/gallery.files/is3.gif vs Sherman http://pattonarmy.free.fr/update-juin-2005/Sherman.jpg What about the Pershing? |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.