Patton vs. Zhukov

Stalker

Banned
Where did I say the Luftwaffe was incapable of doing anything since 1942???:confused:

Indeed, which planes bombed the shit out of the Russians? In 1941, sure, but by 1942 the Luftwaffe was seriously overstretched in the east.
Relatively small force of Luftwaffe on the East Front is something close to absurd. When in 1941 Lufwiffe having striken Red Air Force on the airfields and destroying 3/4 of Red airplaines on the Western border thus winning the skies, that was the hell on earth for retreating and running RKKA troops. So small force means no force at all because it will be simply incapable of wisthstanding huge Red Air Force and its Stalin's Falcons. And that would have mean no defense for Wermacht on the ground being bombed, shit out, by Sturmovicks (Il-2) and Pe-8.
Moreover, aren't we talking about Red Army of 1945 here? These are experienced troops, skilled, with doctrine already flexible (Germans were tough teachers), confident, with sky high morale, with good generals and sturdy veterans of non-coms. Evidently, that quite a different kettle of fish.;)
 
Relatively small force of Luftwaffe on the East Front is something close to absurd. When in 1941 Lufwiffe having striken Red Air Force on the airfields and destroying 3/4 of Red airplaines on the Western border thus winning the skies, that was the hell on earth for retreating and running RKKA troops.
*sigh*
Please try to actually read what I say next time.
As I said in my last post, I'm not claiming that there wasn't a large Luftwaffe presence in the east in 1941 or 1942.
What I am saying is that from 1942 onwards, that force was diminishing, mostly because of increasingly large transfers to the west.
So why the hell are you talking about operation Barbarossa, when the discussion is about the Luftwaffe in the east from 1942 onwards???

So small force means no force at all because it will be simply incapable of wisthstanding huge Red Air Force and its Stalin's Falcons. And that would have mean no defense for Wermacht on the ground being bombed, shit out, by Sturmovicks (Il-2) and Pe-8.
And basically, that is what happened. Where the Russians actually made a concerted effort of gaining control over the skies, they could more or less bomb Wehrmacht troops with impunity.

Moreover, aren't we talking about Red Army of 1945 here? These are experienced troops, skilled, with doctrine already flexible (Germans were tough teachers), confident, with sky high morale, with good generals and sturdy veterans of non-coms. Evidently, that quite a different kettle of fish.;)
Sure we are, just like we're talking about the American, British, Canadian, French, etc... armies here who are also experienced, but also much more mobile than the Red Army troops, and there is a lot more cooperation between the Air and Ground forces, with forward observes attached to (sometimes) squad sized levels.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Is Bard32 for real or just a troll :confused: ? Because I find it hard to believe anyone could be that ignorant :eek: ! Even the Discovery Channel and old books from the 1970’s would know the difference between a division and a Front :p .

Or perhaps not ;) ?

Even Calbear, usually a font of wisdom and accuracy, has gone off the deep end in his post about the 1st Byelorussian Front :).

...

A font? :eek::D

In any case, here is one of the sources I used.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_berlin.html#app1

When comparing U.S. and Soviet WW II armored units, you also need to look at the strength to get a true picture. The average Red Army unit was at pretty close to full strength when they hit Berlin (Stalin made sure of this before he went after the city) so a Tank Army (3 corps) was right around 700-800 tanks, mostly T-34/76, but with a decent number of T-34/85 mixed in. American Armored division TOE called for 176 - 232 Shermans.

As you note, Patton's force would have been massively overmatched.

A brief note about the discussion of airpower - Airpower is actually outside the original scope of the initial post. Patton had no organic air units, while Zhukov had had two full air armies under his direct command, but the question was who would win head to head (short term, the air units would pretty much cancel each other out in any case, based on the parameters outlined).
 

Stalker

Banned
So why the hell are you talking about operation Barbarossa, when the discussion is about the Luftwaffe in the east from 1942 onwards???
Only to show you that air cover cannot be niglegted.

And basically, that is what happened. Where the Russians actually made a concerted effort of gaining control over the skies, they could more or less bomb Wehrmacht troops with impunity.
Well, haven't it occured to you that Germans tried to match the Red Air Force but since 1943 were simply failing to do that? What I mean is that major effort and major resources were being directed from 1943 to 1945 to the East all the same to help the Luftwaffe keep on.


Sure we are, just like we're talking about the American, British, Canadian, French, etc... armies here who are also experienced, but also much more mobile than the Red Army troops, and there is a lot more cooperation between the Air and Ground forces, with forward observes attached to (sometimes) squad sized levels.
So, we are talking about 1945. Then I simply return you to your first post where you state that "Red Army soldiers (be they tankers, infantrymen or artillerymen) are almost equally inexperienced in getting the shit bombed out of them by fighter-bombers." How to understand this passage then - were they inexperienced because Red Air Force kept them well from the threats from above, or they were inexperienced because until 1945 they were simply bombed out by German air raids and substituted by green rookies?:rolleyes:
The question is the Western Allies were more maneuvrable than Soviets is also very disputable. Inflexible army simply would have been unable to annihilate the best and most mobile army in the world - Wehrmaht - outflanking it, surrounding it, not only fighting with numbers but with skill. And, again, I'll need a little lyrical digression back to 1941 when RKKA also had numbers almost in all aspects on her side, and we know being inflexible and immobile, it lost completely to Wehrmacht during summer battles and was almost ruined.
What I mostly see in the thread is a stereotypic way of thinking that Soviets won their victory only with numbers. Yes, the death toll is terrible but were such an idea true, no numbers would have helped USSR...
 
A brief note about the discussion of airpower - Airpower is actually outside the original scope of the initial post. Patton had no organic air units, while Zhukov had had two full air armies under his direct command, but the question was who would win head to head (short term, the air units would pretty much cancel each other out in any case, based on the parameters outlined).
True, but armies don't operate in a vacuum. Given the size of both the American and the Soviets air forces it would be extremely unlikely that they wouldn't be involved if it would come down to a head-to-head between Zhukov and Patton.

Only to show you that air cover cannot be niglegted.
And just where do I say air power can be neglected. I've been arguing the exact opposite from my first post in this thread.

Well, haven't it occured to you that Germans tried to match the Red Air Force but since 1943 were simply failing to do that? What I mean is that major effort and major resources were being directed from 1943 to 1945 to the East all the same to help the Luftwaffe keep on.
Yes, they were failing to do that. And one of the main reasons for that was the transfer or large Luftwaffe units to the west.

So, we are talking about 1945. Then I simply return you to your first post where you state that "Red Army soldiers (be they tankers, infantrymen or artillerymen) are almost equally inexperienced in getting the shit bombed out of them by fighter-bombers." How to understand this passage then - were they inexperienced because Red Air Force kept them well from the threats from above, or they were inexperienced because until 1945 they were simply bombed out by German air raids and substituted by green rookies?:rolleyes:
Well, I believe (don't have any direct sources on this, so if you have sources that say the opposite, I'd be glad to accept them) that most of the Soviet soldiers in the Red Army in 1945 were not veterans from 1942-1943. Therefor, no, I do not believe they had a lot of experience with getting the shit bombed out of them.

The question is the Western Allies were more maneuvrable than Soviets is also very disputable. Inflexible army simply would have been unable to annihilate the best and most mobile army in the world - Wehrmaht - outflanking it, surrounding it, not only fighting with numbers but with skill. And, again, I'll need a little lyrical digression back to 1941 when RKKA also had numbers almost in all aspects on her side, and we know being inflexible and immobile, it lost completely to Wehrmacht during summer battles and was almost ruined.
So because I say the western allies are more manoevrable than the Red army, that means I say the Red Army is inflexible???
Let me give you a hint: NO IT DOESN'T!

What I mostly see in the thread is a stereotypic way of thinking that Soviets won their victory only with numbers. Yes, the death toll is terrible but were such an idea true, no numbers would have helped USSR...
I never said they won their victory ONLY with numbers. I do believe they won MOSTLY thanks to their numbers.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
True, but armies don't operate in a vacuum. Given the size of both the American and the Soviets air forces it would be extremely unlikely that they wouldn't be involved if it would come down to a head-to-head between Zhukov and Patton.


...

Well, that is part of the problem with the initial scenario. Zhukov was a Front Commander; prior to that he was effectively the commander of the entire Red Army. Patton was a subordinate to a subordinate, commanding a orce that was, at best, a quarter of the size of Zhukov's Front.

Air Power would also, in the short term, be far less of an issue than is sometimes supposed. The YaK-9 was a very capable fighter, and many of the Soviet pilots were also the equals of their Western counterparts. Overall, the Red Air Force would be capable of denying Patton the air supremacy that was commonly enjoyed by both the U.S. and British forces in the ETO.

In the initial days of any engagement, the Red Army's massive advantage in high quality armor, artillery, and sufficiently strong air power would result in rather horrifying losses to the Third Army (or any other Western formation of similar size), probably to the point where it would become combat ineffective within two, perhaps three, weeks.

In the medium/long term the Allied overwhelming advantage in heavy bombers (not to mention early jet fighters) would, IMO, result in the defeat of the Red Army though interdiction of the Soviet supply train and eventual defeat of the Red Air Force by the qualitatively superior Allied air forces (The Soviets lacked any sort of heavy bomber, and the newest Allied fighter designs, both piston, and especially jet, are a qualitiative step ahead of the Soviets). There is also, in the end, the Big Stick. The U.S. had it, the Soviets didn't.
 
I like the History Channel. I don't watch it that often but I like the programs.
I read novels and nonfiction. The Luftwaffe '46 thread is an attempt to get
a discussion started.

I've only one suggestion: Read peer- reviewed, serious history books written by real acadmics. Forget all this nonsense about the History Channel.
 

Stalker

Banned
The Soviets lacked any sort of heavy bomber, and the newest Allied fighter designs, both piston, and especially jet, are a qualitiative step ahead of the Soviets). There is also, in the end, the Big Stick. The U.S. had it, the Soviets didn't.
Have you heard of Long Range Bombers Pe-8?
The only thing is that USSR had really produced them much much fewer than there were B-29. And Soviets had high-altitude interceptors La-5TK or MiG-3s (unfortunately, by 1945 there were quite a few MiG-3s in the West) capable of taking Superfortresses off the skies. Jet-fighters were no problem because of shorter range and could not cover bombers all the way to target.
Big Stick? Hmm... We are discussing Patton vs Zhukov, and now we are seem to be starting measuring dicks on the national scale...:D
We still don't have a task set out clearly with limits defined, and laying down the playground wherein we could play our game.:confused:
 
Less than a 100 long range bombers hardly constutues a strategic bomber force. Plus I question just how many were operational at any one time.

At the Red Tide site on Yahoo we played around with the whole idea of the Red Army being sent aqainst the West by Stalin (the idea originated on the Baen site). The only rational reason anyone could ever come with for Stalin striking west was a good defense id a good ofense. Any attack in the West would probably be proceeded by the American and Commonwealth Armies trying to demobilize some of their forces as fast as possible. Combat formations in Europe would shadows of the the forces they had been only months before. Plus how much equipment and ordinance was being readied for shipment to the Far East for the planned Operation Olympic 9the first stage of Operation Downfall). Much less the combat troops. In the end I see the Red Army getting as far as the Rhine before the Western Allies hold them by a combination of air power, a far better capacity to mass their artillery fires and supply problems on the Red Armies part. Plus the USSR never really had to deal with a strategic bombing campaign against it. By late fall 1945 I think we could see B-29s operating out of Iran, Cyprus or possibly Turkey. There are a number of things the Russians could do. One is to lend support to Arab nationalists in the MIddle East. One potential fly in the ointment for the Western Allies IMO would be France. I have a great deal of problems seeing the French allowing their ports to be used to support combat operations to as they see it save the Germans.

Its been pretty inactive for a while but I really can't think of why it hasn't been mentioned here at this site, if it hasn't

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redtide-1945/?yguid=187701020
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Have you heard of Long Range Bombers Pe-8?
The only thing is that USSR had really produced them much much fewer than there were B-29. And Soviets had high-altitude interceptors La-5TK or MiG-3s (unfortunately, by 1945 there were quite a few MiG-3s in the West) capable of taking Superfortresses off the skies. Jet-fighters were no problem because of shorter range and could not cover bombers all the way to target.
Big Stick? Hmm... We are discussing Patton vs Zhukov, and now we are seem to be starting measuring dicks on the national scale...:D
We still don't have a task set out clearly with limits defined, and laying down the playground wherein we could play our game.:confused:

Pe-8? Somewhere between 80 & 93 built, including a number with diesel engines (IIRC a unique feature among WW II bombers) by May 1945 roughly 30 remained active, mainly in the transport role (by comparison the USAAF accepted some 12,000 B-17s,18,000 B-24s, 3,900 B-29s, & even 118 B-32s, an aircraft built just in case the B-29 didn't pan out).

Slower version of the contemporary B-17B (Pe-8 273mph max/211 cruise; B-17 323/250); similar range & practical bombload, very similar perfomance (speed and altitude) to Avro Lancaster but far inferior bomb load. Unlike American & British contemporaries the aircraft was never upgraded to meet later war standards. Notably inferior to the B-29 & B-32 across the performance envelope (as one would expect from a four year older design)

Overall, an interesting mid-30's design that was never properly developed for 1940's combat.


MiG-3? Fairly fast (414 MPH), especially when first introduced, high altitude fighter. Woefully undergunned, with 1 12.7mm & 2 7.62mm machine guns, to the point that it is an open question if the aircraft had the ability to down any Western Heavy bomber except by ramming. Inferior across the performance envelope, save service ceiling, to every piston engined fighter the Allied produced from mid-1943 onward. Main use in last year of the war was as a High altitude/high speed recon aircraft, where it was far less capable than the de Havilland Mosquito & Lockheed P-38, which were faster, far more heavily armed and had a higher ceiling.

Had misfortune to share Mikulin engine with Il-2 ground attack fighter/bomber resulting in end of production run. Exceptionally uncomfortable place to die if the pilot was foolish enough to engage almost any fighter produced after 1940, suicide machine against a P-38, -47, 51, and any Spitfire mark after the VA

La-5? Decent low altitude fighter, sturdy construction. Evolved into La-7, possibily the best Soviet fighter of the war (although the YaK-9 had superior manueverability) As was common among later Soviet fighter designs was armed with 20-mm ShVAK cannon (two, in some marks, three, weapons), a weapon with a high rate of fire, but reputedly with a serious jamming problem (possibly traceable to the design being an enlarged version of the 12.7mm machine gun that was not sufficiently robust for the cartridge fired). Both designs inferior at altitude to P-51 & later marks of Spirfire, although a formidable opponent at lower flight levels (rather like the U.S. P-47 & RAF Typhoon, although not as well armed as either Western fighter).

As far as the parameters of the potential battlefield, there is a rather lengthy thread where a main force on force Spring 1945 war between the Western Allies and the USSR is kicked around elsewhere in this forum. Nevertheless, in any wider discussion of a possible Western/Soviet clash in mid 1945 or later the fact that the United States had access to a weapon of incredible tactical, as well as strategic, utility has to be factored into the mix.

The scenario that was initiated here has little to do with any serious discussion on the issue, being a rather insipid effort to compare two General officers who are not even the best representatives produced by their respective countries, much less of the entire war.
 
The scenario that was initiated here has little to do with any serious discussion on the issue, being a rather insipid effort to compare two General officers who are not even the best representatives produced by their respective countries, much less of the entire war.
Of course they are, the History Channel said so.
 
Some people treat the History Channel like some Muslims treat the Quran or some Christians treat the Bible : The Holy Source of Truth.
 

Stalker

Banned
La-5? Decent low altitude fighter, sturdy construction. Evolved into La-7, possibily the best Soviet fighter of the war (although the YaK-9 had superior manueverability)
BTW, I don't know why but Russian and English data on Pe-8 differ seriously by such parameter as bombload, range and altitude. Besides, as you understand I gave it as a counterpart to B-29 (of course, by all parameters inferior to the former), USSR had a wide range of other bomber types in numbers.
Correction, sir - La-5 TK is a modification of La-5 to a high atitude interceptor with operational altitude of 13500 m. Was equipped with a new engine М-82ФН and two turbocompressors ТК-3. It was also the other HA-interseptor - Yak-9 PD (Як-9 ПД) but where I agree with you is that both La-5 TK and Yak-9 PD were paper lions - the Soviets failed to come up with decent HA-interceptor at the time, and the only such fighter they had, MiG-3, had been out of production since 1943. Moreover, Soviets had no radars, they relied mainly on patroling, air observatrion posts and acoustic tracking stations. Still, if we speak of a little bit enlengthened period of this "glorious opposition", I should mention that by summer 1946 Soviets start produce Yak-15 Jets, light, maneuvrable, well-armed with ceiling 13 000 meters, So if Allied Air Force by that time will have been unable to with the Europe's skies, I am afraid, bombing raids
As far as the parameters of the potential battlefield, there is a rather lengthy thread where a main force on force Spring 1945 war between the Western Allies and the USSR is kicked around elsewhere in this forum. Nevertheless, in any wider discussion of a possible Western/Soviet clash in mid 1945 or later the fact that the United States had access to a weapon of incredible tactical, as well as strategic, utility has to be factored into the mix.
The scenario that was initiated here has little to do with any serious discussion on the issue, being a rather insipid effort to compare two General officers who are not even the best representatives produced by their respective countries, much less of the entire war.
Could not help agreeing with you here.;)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
BTW, I don't know why but Russian and English data on Pe-8 differ seriously by such parameter as bombload, range and altitude. Besides, as you understand I gave it as a counterpart to B-29 (of course, by all parameters inferior to the former), USSR had a wide range of other bomber types in numbers.
Correction, sir - La-5 TK is a modification of La-5 to a high atitude interceptor with operational altitude of 13500 m. Was equipped with a new engine ?-82?? and two turbocompressors ??-3. It was also the other HA-interseptor - Yak-9 PD (??-9 ??) but where I agree with you is that both La-5 TK and Yak-9 PD were paper lions - the Soviets failed to come up with decent HA-interceptor at the time, and the only such fighter they had, MiG-3, had been out of production since 1943. Moreover, Soviets had no radars, they relied mainly on patroling, air observatrion posts and acoustic tracking stations. Still, if we speak of a little bit enlengthened period of this "glorious opposition", I should mention that by summer 1946 Soviets start produce Yak-15 Jets, light, maneuvrable, well-armed with ceiling 13 000 meters, So if Allied Air Force by that time will have been unable to with the Europe's skies, I am afraid, bombing raids

Could not help agreeing with you here.;)


Just a quick response regarding the YaK-15. The aircraft was far from a significant breakthrough (unlike the later MiG-15) in terms of performance. It was actually slower than either the P-51H and the Spitfire XXII and enjoyed a service ceiling advantage of less than 300 meters. It was also not introduced into squadron service, and in very small numbers, until late 1947 (sources, both Western and Russian indicate it zuffered reliability issues and was mainly used as a transitional trainer to more advanced Soviet sesigns). It was also woefully underarmed to act as a dogfighter, being equipped with two, while powerful, 23mm cannon, also featured a very low rate of fire and a magazine capacity of only 60 rounds per gun, hardly what is needed when confronting numerically superior, qualitatively equal, enemy fighters. (It should be noted that the 8th AF routinely escorted bomber formations with more Mustangs than the YaK-15's entire production run.)
 

Stalker

Banned
Just a quick response regarding the YaK-15. The aircraft was far from a significant breakthrough (unlike the later MiG-15) in terms of performance. It was actually slower than either the P-51H and the Spitfire XXII and enjoyed a service ceiling advantage of less than 300 meters. It was also not introduced into squadron service, and in very small numbers, until late 1947 (sources, both Western and Russian indicate it zuffered reliability issues and was mainly used as a transitional trainer to more advanced Soviet sesigns). It was also woefully underarmed to act as a dogfighter, being equipped with two, while powerful, 23mm cannon, also featured a very low rate of fire and a magazine capacity of only 60 rounds per gun, hardly what is needed when confronting numerically superior, qualitatively equal, enemy fighters. (It should be noted that the 8th AF routinely escorted bomber formations with more Mustangs than the YaK-15's entire production run.)
True. All is true. It's also true that once the war was over the things were probably not so urgent and pace of innovations slowed considerably as well as military production. The same can be observed in Soviet post-war tank designing and production with numbers of so called transitional models that were either produced in imited quantities or remained only prototypes. The situation where USSR is clashed with the Allies might have accelerated things. That's just one more of multiple questions about what each side could do and what they actually did. Well, probably this interesting issue needs a separate thread with more real conditions than this silly duelling between two generals.;)
Seems to me, some time ago I mentioned Russian AH-book on the same topic written by Serguey Anissimov "Variant "BIS"", an interesting analysis of what might have happened if everything had gone such a grim scenario.
The book ends optimistically for Soviet campaign in Europe of 1945 (a tactical plan) and quite pessimisticaly for the Soviet Union in the long run (a strategic plan). He raises many of the issues we've been discussing in the series "Soviet-Allied clash in WWII). And despite the book being fiction, his modelling of situation may be considered realistic - he tested and corrected his scenario both in the Russian AH-Board and in Military & Historical Forum the latter full of a whole bunch of crazy freaks with heads full of encyclopedic knowlege of WWII etc.:D
BTW, I'd recommend the Western publishers to translate the book just to show an alternate point of view: Soviets kick the Western butt militarily but all the same loose in the long run politically. :rolleyes:
A nice cover:
5-289-02323-2.jpg
 
Top