# Americans Late to Major Ground Combat in WWII?



## MAJOR_Baker (23 Jun 2005)

After reading a number of posts about US involvement in WWII, especially that the consensus was that they were late, I did a little research on dates and I thought it appropriate to point out a few.

Canada declares War on Germany - 10 September 1939
Canada Sends Troops to GB, are sent to France, are recalled, not involved in combat operations, and are evacuated back to GB - 13 -14 June 1940.
Canadian Corps, lots of training (involved in commando raids) - 1940-1942

Japan attacks USA - 7 December 1941
Germany Declares War on USA (not the other way around) - 11 December 1941
Japan and US invovled in Major Combat in the southwest Pacific - 1941 - VJ Day

Canada leads Dieppe raid,  (a few US Army Rangers are there as well) - 19 August 1942
US and UK forces invade North Africa - 8 November 1942
Canada and US troops invade Kiska (Aleutian Islands) - 15 August 1943

No flame war here gentlemen and ladies, point is, both US and CDN forces contributed to the Allies eventual victory, but the US was not that late when compared to other Commonwealth Forces.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

You are right, Canada never had a significant push until Italy - by this time the American Forces were heavily engaged.  A point can be made along the lines of Naval Forces and Political Support - but any reading of the record shows that the US were contributing both of these in abundance prior to its actual entry into the war in late '41.

Cut it anyway you want, Britain, Canada and the US all shared in the defeat of Germany - anyone who attempts to point out some sort of short-coming in America for officially being late for the party is being petty and probably trying to do a little "penis measurement".


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> anyone who attempts to point out some sort of short-coming in America for officially being late for the party is being petty and probably trying to do a little "penis measurement".


Jan Brady Syndrome.


----------



## redleafjumper (23 Jun 2005)

The Americans also made significant contributions in terms of the "lend-lease" programme prior to their entry into the war. The American efforts to supply the Soviet Union with trucks, aircraft and some armour as well as other supplies also directly contributed to the abilities of the Soviet Union to rebound against operation Barbarossa make its own contribution to defeating Germany.  The Soviet were slow off the mark in the war against Japan, and they made some tremendous gains in territory at the expense of Japan by declaring war on Japan when the war was nearly over.


----------



## oyaguy (24 Jun 2005)

Hmmm, nice title. Hooked me straight away.

An argument can be made that _all _of the western allies were late for major ground combat.

Think about.

Whatever date any of the western allies got into the game, it wasn't until June 6 1944, that the western allies were finally operating in a major theatre, against the main enemy. Everthing up to that, was a side show. North Africa, Italy, all the Pacific Island jumping, were theatres/operations that generally took relatively small numbers of troops. From June 6 1944 to May 8 1945, wasn't even a whole year of major ground combat operations.

 I'm taking these numbers of the top of my head {It's late, I really don't think I'm so far off the marks. If am, call me on it}, but I do not believe that more than 10 Divisions were in the Italian theatre at any given time. Same with North Africa. Probably even fewer divisions were committed to the Island campaigns. 

Casualties seem to back this up too. Canada in World War I, had 60, 000 dead. From 1915-1918, Canada had at least a division deployed in the field, for four years, on the "main front, against the main enemy" {Gordon Corrigan: Mud, Blood and Poppycock}. By late 1916, there were four Canadian divisions on the western front.

Compared to World War 2, we had 40, 000 dead. I'm fairly certain that 10, 000 of those dead were aircrews. So the Canadian Army, of five divisions, {3 Infantry, 2 Armoured} and two independent armoured brigades, had half the casualties of the Canadian Corps, of WWI. Why? Because the 1st Canadian Army, wasn't in the field against the main enemy on the main front for four years.

Same thing bears out for the British. I think the British had 50 divisions deployed on the Western Front on November 11th, 1918. Five years of combat got the British over 900, 000 dead. In comparison to the French Army of World War I, an argument can be made that the British were a little late for the party, as they had almost twice the number of dead. IN comparison the British of World War II had about 400, 000 dead, and portions of that total would be taken by air and naval forces.

All of this is in comparison to the Germans and the Soviets who were in major combat operations against each other from 1942 right up to the end of the war. Three years of major combat operations, on fronts where the Germans and the Soviets deployed hundreds of divisions.

So forget the US. All the Western Allies were late for ground combat during World War II.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> All of this is in comparison to the Germans and the Soviets who were in major combat operations against each other from 1942 right up to the end of the war. Three years of major combat operations, on fronts where the Germans and the Soviets deployed hundreds of divisions.



Barbarossa - June 22, 1941; 4 years of continuous operations on the Eastern Front.

You are right, the scale of the Eastern Front dwarfed anything that would happen in the West.   For example, the smallest offensive into Europe by the Soviets in 1944, the occupation of Romania, involved more soldiers and casualties than Normandy.

That being said, I remember reading that after 1942, the German's never had more than 25% of the Luftwaffe in the Eastern Front - all that production, manpower, and resources was directed to repelling the bomber offensives.


----------



## oyaguy (24 Jun 2005)

Good point about the Luftwaffe.

However, I kind of choose to ignore that in my original. While airpower in World War II made a major contribution, in terms of production, anti-aircraft, fighter aircraft deployed, etc... it still wasn't going to win the war by itself. The bombing campaign was a kind of a sideshow unto itself in my mind. Resources were poured into it by both sides, but in the case of the Western Allies, it was a side show that if lost the Western Allies lose, period. Either way, Bombing wasn't going to win the war.

What do you want to be that the Western Allies aircrews were better than the Germans and Soviets? 4-5 years of ongoing air operations is a lot of time to get up the learning curve.


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Jun 2005)

Hmm. Oyaguy, I think you are a little harsh on the British in the First War by merely counting casualties. Your other stats are pretty close though, by my reckoning anyway.  
From DND Archives and Veteran's Affairs (used by the Legion) the stats are:
World War 1
628,736 Canadians served
66,573 died and 138,166 were wounded  :'(
2,818 were POW
175 merchant seamen died by enemy action

World War 2
1,031,902 males and 49,963 female Canadians served
44,927 died and 53,145 were wounded  :'(
8,271 were POW
1,146 merchant seamen died by enemy action

(Note that these stats include all services, not just ground troops)

Consider the impact of influenza, the French army's elan and Verdun's contribution to the first war's high French body count.  The British relied heavily on colonial troops from all over the empire, so the casualties got soaked of a bit into those colonials (keeps the casualty figures low in London...)  Improved medicine and care made a huge difference in WW 2.
It seems a bit mean to minimalize the efforts of the Western Allies in the North African, Middle East and Burma Campaigns, the D-Day Dodgers, Crete and also the Canadians engaged at Hong Kong early on who suffered a tragic defeat there.  As well the French and the British might disagree that the retreat to Dunkirk was without major ground combat, it's just that it didn't go very well.  You are certainly correct that the biggest fighting was on the Eastern Front, but I don't see that it is fair to belittle the contribution of all those soldiers who fought in those other campaigns.  The Soviets, remember, didn't have the luxury of choice about coming late to the party, Barbarossa took care of that issue nicely.  Up until that time there was this thing called Ribbentrop and Molotov's Non-aggression Pact.  Prior to Barbarossa, the Soviets were talking with Germany about how to divide up Poland and other possible conquests.  

While it is partially correct to credit the different nature of the engagements in the two wars for the lower allied casualty rate in WW2, you really have to consider the impact of influenza and other diseases which were the major killers on all sides in WW1, they just weren't the same problem in WW2.  The other point is that there were many more administrative troops that supported front lines troops in WW2 than in WW1.


----------



## oyaguy (24 Jun 2005)

I'm not trying to belittle anyone. There's simply no ignoring the fact though, that no matter how successful the Western Allies  are in the side shows, they still weren't going to knock out Germany from the war. Yeah, the Italian campaign liberated Italy and knocked Italy out of the war, but it still wasn't going to defeat Germany. The Greeks and North Africa proved how useful the Italians were when it came to showing useful Mussolini was in proping up the Axis power structure{not very}. 

The Battle of France hardly counts. The Germans utterly rolled the French, and ejected the British from the continent. I don't think anyone will agree that the British or the French, in terms of combat capability, were better off after the Battle of France.

You are correct, my numbers for the British were a little harsh. Actually about 700, 000 British died, compared to 403, 000 in World War II. 

The numbers of people who died of Spanish Influenza are almost always separate from casualties from World War I, especially in regard to the Western European countries. Numbers for Russia and the Ottoman Empire are notoriously inaccurate. Additionally many historians have noted that the Spanish Flu was probably a mark against the Germans, as the British Naval blockade was starting to kick in by then and the soldiers and civilians were short of food.

The casualty treatment rates between World War I and World War II, are remarkably similar. While there were no anti-biotics during World War I, the {generally} static fronts meant that a WWI infantryman, from being wounded to hospital, had a much shorter trip, resulting in similar figures for casualty treatment. 

Also, the casualty rates for the battles showed that the maneuver warfare of World War II was significantly more lethal than many of the battles World War II. Ask a person, "would you have rather been in the middle of the Somme, or the Battle of Normandy" most people would probably say Normandy. If you did, you just upped you chances of dying. The computation for the Somme worked out to about 89 dead per division, per week; compared to Normandy, with 100 dead per division per week {numbers from Gordon Corrigan's Mud Blood and Poppycock}.

This isn't to take anything away from any veterans who fought in the so-called "sideshows" but it is simply a fact, that the British Army of World War I had more infantry divisions engaged for a longer period of time than the British Army of World War II. Everything during World War II up to D-Day doesn't compare, because the Western Allies weren't fighting the main enemy on the main front. 

All of this line is just some arguments for a line of reasoning, that says all the Western Allies of WWII were late for major ground combat.

Thank you Mr. redleafjumper for checking out my numbers, it was late and I was doing them off the top of my head. Most of them were in the ball park.


----------



## STA Gunner (24 Jun 2005)

Don't belittle our commitment either.

In your original post, you forgot "Canadians involved in defence of Hong Kong - 8-25 Dec 1941"

There tends to be some people who blow the US or Canadian commitment out of proportion.  Other tend to belittle them.  In reality it falls somewhere in the middle.  Our grandfathers sorted it out then, we don't need to overanalyse it now.

Cheers


----------



## oyaguy (24 Jun 2005)

STA Gunner said:
			
		

> There tends to be some people who blow the US or Canadian commitment out of proportion.  Other tend to belittle them.  In reality it falls somewhere in the middle.  Our grandfathers sorted it out then, we don't need to overanalyse it now.
> Cheers



Yes, we need to overanalyse it. That's history. You get your synthesis a few years after the fact, and then a few decades later, you redo it all over again and on and on and on.

As for Hong Kong, I didn't forget it, it just didn't really seem a serious challenge to my argument.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jun 2005)

> As for Hong Kong, I didn't forget it, it just didn't really seem a serious challenge to my argument.



From whose perspective?  In a tactical or strategic sense?


----------



## oyaguy (24 Jun 2005)

My whole argument of major ground combat against the Main Enemy on the Main Front. Japan wasn't the main enemy, and the defence of Hong Kong, was definitely a sideshow, even in the fight against the Japanese.

In the actual circumstances the Hong Kong commitment accomplished nothing, except the loss of two perfectly good battalions. Strategically, two extra battalion weren't going to deter the Japanese from taking Japan, and tactically, two extra battalion weren't going to make a difference when the Japanese decided to take Hong Kong.


----------



## Gunner (25 Jun 2005)

> In the actual circumstances the Hong Kong commitment accomplished nothing, except the loss of two perfectly good battalions. Strategically, two extra battalion weren't going to deter the Japanese from taking Japan, and tactically, two extra battalion weren't going to make a difference when the Japanese decided to take Hong Kong.



Wouldn't you say that Hong Kong had a strategic importance for the British?  

The Far East was very weakly defended as the British focus was quite rightly focussed on North Africa.  However, the British were using its Far East colonies to assist in the financing of the war by the provision of much needed raw materials and hard currency from selling commodities.  Moreover, any move by the Japanese was very contentious in Australia in terms of where their soldiers were stationed in support of the war effort.  The Australians acquitted themselves very well during the war (9th Division at Tobruk in 1941) and the movement of available soldiers from North Africa back to Australia would have had serious consequences for the British.  Even more powerful was the psychological effect on Great Britain if they left Hong Kong and their other eastern possessions undefended!   By reinforcing Hong Kong with whatever forces the British could scrap together was, in essence, a very large gamble by Churchill in order to thwart a Japanese attack.  

Two battalions of Canadians was a gesture towards the defence of Hong Kong (at best) but the UK was at a strategic check mate.  The war was not going in the allies favour in 1941, at least until the end of December 1941, when it was a whole new ball game... Had the movement of British and Commonwealth forces into the Far Eastern theatre of operations sufficintly concerned the Japanese, perhaps it may have bought the British time or avoided war altogether?  Of course, what would have happened to the allies had Pearl Harbour not occured?  

History is wonderful as everyone is an expert at deciding what everyone should have done.


----------



## EW (25 Jun 2005)

" ....I'm not trying to belittle anyone. There's simply no ignoring the fact though, that no matter how successful the Western Allies  are in the side shows, they still weren't going to knock out Germany from the war...."

Comparing the Canadian and U.S. contribution to WWII to the Russians or almost any other county is like comparing apples and oranges.  There is a reason why Canadians are received so well in the Netherlands and other areas they liberated.  It is because the local populace realize that the Canadians came a great distance to fight in a war against an enemy who was not an immediate threat to Canada.  This goes somewhat the same for the U.S., although it did take an attack on American soil (Pearl Harbor of course) to convince the U.S. Congress that their policy of isolation was not effective.

The Russians were fighting on their own soil, so I would imagine that they would be involved early on.  A situation which Stalin precipitated by his ill conceived pact with Hitler.

Lets not forget if it were not for the Commonwealth troops who garrisoned the UK during the early stages of the war, there might (subject for another debate perhaps) have been a real threat of a German attack across the channel.  Than there might not have been a place for the US to build up its forces for the liberation of Europe.  And, lets not forget that those 10 (or so) Divisions fighting in Italy kept a good number of German Divisions tied up and unable to reinforce the Eastern front, or help protect against the inevitable invasion of Europe by the allies.

Plenty of credit to go around of course; and all the allied nations responded in an admirable manner (what a generation) but by no means should Canadians think anything less of their fighting soldiers than any other nations.  Just ask the Dutch about those hundreds of thousands of young men who came from the safety of Canada, to help liberate Europe.  

A few years ago I had to correspond with the city of Darwin Australia about a Canadian unit that served there in secrecy (1st Canadian Special Wireless Group) during WWII.  The letter I received (for the vets) was rich in context about how those men came all the way from Canada to help a fellow Commonwealth country that was in trouble.  Darwin was bombed about the same time as Pearl Harbor, so they were feeling far from safe in Northern Australia.

Canada didn't really have to go to war in 1939, the threat was years away from Canada.  Plenty of time to work with the US on a North American strategy against Germay and the Axis. 

Canadians and Russians during WWII - apples and oranges.

Cheers ....


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> My whole argument of major ground combat against the Main Enemy on the Main Front. Japan wasn't the main enemy, and the defence of Hong Kong, was definitely a sideshow, even in the fight against the Japanese.



Tell that to the United States Marine Corps (or Field Marshal Slim for that matter).


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Jun 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Hmmm, nice title. Hooked me straight away.
> 
> Everthing up to that, was a side show......      ......all the Pacific Island jumping, were theatres/operations that generally took relatively small numbers of troops.



A side show? I suggest you take a look at US casualty figures alone in the Pacific theatre, not including Australian figures at that. Japan was not a main enemy? Fucken hell, what history books have you been reading??

Using the word sideshow is an INSULT to anyone who fought in the Pacific, and to the families who lost their Dads, Husbands, Brothers, Uncles and Boyfriends. Some of the most intense battles in the war were fought in these 'sideshows' as you call em.

Frankly shame on ya for even putting such crap to words on here.

Disgusted.


----------



## old medic (25 Jun 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> My whole argument of major ground combat against the Main Enemy on the Main Front. Japan wasn't the main enemy....





> Everthing up to that, was a side show. North Africa, Italy, all the Pacific Island jumping, were theatres/operations that generally took relatively small numbers of troops





> While airpower in World War II made a major contribution, in terms of production, anti-aircraft, fighter aircraft deployed, etc... it still wasn't going to win the war by itself. The bombing campaign was a kind of a sideshow unto itself in my mind. Resources were poured into it by both sides, but in the case of the Western Allies, it was a side show



Sum up.
What wasn't a side show to you?


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jun 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Hmmm, nice title. Hooked me straight away.
> 
> An argument can be made that _all _of the western allies were late for major ground combat.
> 
> ...



North Africa was a side show? Burma was a side show? Hong Kong and Singapore were side shows?   Tell that to my grandmothers who combined lost seven sons in those shitholes.


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Jun 2005)

I know you were referring to western armies, but one of the large allies that has been neglected in this thread was engaged for a much longer time than any of the others and that is the army of Nationalist China under Chiang Kai Shek.  If any one  country has a right to say that other nations were "late to the party" it would be Nationalist China and Manchuria.  Hardly a sideshow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jun 2005)

Oyaguy,
May all the "ghosts" of your so-called "sideshows" come back and kick your ***........
      +
MOD NOTE
Have some respect for those that perished or begone with you.


----------



## 2 Cdo (25 Jun 2005)

Sorry Oyaguy but saying battles anywhere but Normandy were a sideshow is a definite insult to those troops who fought in these "sideshows"! How easy it must be to play armchair tactician 50 plus years after the fact!

It reminds me of a little story my father told me; On returning from Korea he was reporting into his new posting and a "grizzled old Sgt" told him that Korea wasn't a REAL war like WWII. He went on and on about the fighting that took place in Africa, Italy, Normandy and the Pacific and how the whole world was involved. My father then asked this Sgt where he served during WWII and the Sgt replied that he had fought all through Italy. My dad then asked him if he was worried about the fighting in Africa, and the Sgt replied "No because I was fighting in Italy".

My father ever the smart-ass then said as far as he's concerned the size of the war doesn't matter, all that mattered was if someone to your front was shooting at you that was a big enough war for him!

The point Oyaguy is that ALL theatres, and all the battles were instrumental in defeating Germany and Japan not just D-Day(which was a sideshow to the Eastern front ;D). Couldn't resist!


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2005)

Although I share oyaguy's sentiment that all the other theaters of WWII (Atlantic, Mediteranean, Southeast Asia, Pacific, China, Bomber Campaign) do not have the awesome scope of the 4 years of the Eastern Front (well, China would be pretty damn close), I wouldn't relegate them to "sideshows" - in a total war, these events are all interelated and all equally important.   As an example, my reference to the bomber campaign and the Luftwaffe meant to show that a huge amount of resources and industrial capability were diverted from the German War Effort in the East to help ward off the Bombers; this is Industrial Man-Hours that could have gone to Panthers, Tigers, 88's etc, etc to fight the Russians.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Jun 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Hmmm, nice title. Hooked me straight away.
> ...
> Whatever date any of the western allies got into the game, it wasn't until June 6 1944, that the western allies were finally operating in a major theatre, against the main enemy. Everthing up to that, was a side show. North Africa, Italy, all the Pacific Island jumping, were theatres/operations that generally took relatively small numbers of troops. From June 6 1944 to May 8 1945, wasn't even a whole year of major ground combat operations.



I think you are confusing body count with strategic importance (or possibly European history with world history): look at the Battle of Midway alone.  Had the Allies (Americans) lost that _single _battle the entire West Coast of North America (to say nothing of Australia) would have been exposed to the Axis (Japanese) and there very possibly _never would have been_ a Western Front in Europe ... it seems to me that this little "side-show" (<3,000 total casualties) was at least as important as the main event.

{EDIT: _I'm not trying to suggest that Midway was the most important battle of the war, I'm simply providing a single example of a _ What If?_ which I think demonstrates how weak your "side show" rationale is._}


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

"Hey man, everything not in a Spielberg movie is a sideshow..ok? When I see Tom Hanks rolling across the African desert, fending off the Jap hordes, or fighting Germans up the Italian boot, then I'll give it the respect it deserves."

BTW, if Japan was such a sideshow, why did the Yanks need to drop 2 nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end that 'sideshow'? 

Pull your head form your bum before you post, smartguy.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jun 2005)

Some points just off the top of my head:

1.  If the Brits hadn't held the Germans at the Channel, we would have lost.

2.  If the Yanks hadn't created Lend-Lease and supplied both the UK and USSR, we would have lost.

3.  If the Allies had agreed to a pre-mature crossing of the Channel in 1942, we would have lost and Europe may well still be Communist.

4.  If the Americans hadn't agreed to a "Germany first" strategy and concentrated on what they regarded as the main enemy - Japan - victory would have come years later, if at all.

5.  If the USSR hadn't held the line at Stalingrad, we would have lived with years of stalemate in the West.

6.  If the USSR had been decisively defeated at Kursk, it may well have been over in the East, with years of warfare to go in the West.

7.  The Allies captured as many Axis soldiers in Tunisia as the Soviets defeated at Stalingrad.  A pretty decent "sideshow", really.  Imagine Hitler controlling the Suez Canal and linking up with his Russian army in the Caucausus...

8.  The Soviets weren't concerned with any theatre but their own.  For the Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and Indians, it could be argued that the Pacific was the main theatre.

Finally, comparing casualty figures for WW 1 and WW 2 is rather pointless.  WW 1 was attrition warfare at its peak, with deliberate (and I'm using that term loosely) sacrifice of men and materiel to "bleed" the enemy.  WW 2, by and large, was a manoeuvre war - totally different.  It could be argued that Soviet casualty rates (on the military side) were so much higher than the West's partially because of the Soviet proclivity to conduct massed infantry attacks against dug-in defensive positions.

IMHO, everyone contributed equally to the defeat of the Axis and there were no real "sideshows" (although it could be argued that the Italian campaign was a strategic error).

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Acorn (27 Jun 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 1.   If the Brits hadn't held the Germans at the Channel, *we would have lost*.


 etc.

"What ifs are dangerous, though I think you're right on a couple of those you mentioned.



> It could be argued that Soviet casualty rates (on the military side) were so much higher than the West's partially because of the Soviet proclivity to conduct massed infantry attacks against dug-in defensive positions.



It could be argued, but would be wrong (in my opinion). About 50% of all the Soviet military casualties suffered in the war were inflicted in the period from Spring '41 to Spring '42. I don't think there was any Soviet proclivity to conduct massed infantry attacks against prepared positions at all. The opposite, in fact. Doctrinally they became very good at armoured warfare of the day: infantry breaks the line and the tanks go in and shoot up the cooks and rear HQs. The trick that they eventually mastered was to concentrate the infantry attack where the enemy was weakest.

It's a topic that probably deserves a thread of its own (if there isn't one already).

Acorn


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jun 2005)

I wasn't meaning to "what if" WW II, but instead to prove a point about participation.  You can "what if" this subject to death and there are plenty of alternative history novels to indulge the imagination.  My point was that you can't simply write off a theatre or an activity (or a major participant, for that matter) simply because you "believe" it didn't help with the overall war effort.

As for the Soviets, you could well be correct.  I'm hardly an expert.  However, the battle at Seelow Heights (1945) is a pretty decent example of Soviet lack of imagination and tendency to use frontal attacks.  Throw in use of penal battalions to lead assaults, etc., and the casualty rates climb pretty quickly.  As you said, though, perhaps a subject for a different thread...

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## T.I.M. (28 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That being said, I remember reading that after 1942, the German's never had more than 25% of the Luftwaffe in the Eastern Front - all that production, manpower, and resources was directed to repelling the bomber offensives.



Actually, "Black Cross, Red Star" puts the numbers at upwards of 60% of the entire Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front until late 1943.  Only by mid '44 it had dropped to about 40% of operational strength on the Eastern Front, and most of the Luftwaffe's best squadrons remained in the East until the end of the war.


----------



## T.I.M. (28 Jun 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> As for the Soviets, you could well be correct.   I'm hardly an expert.   However, the battle at Seelow Heights (1945) is a pretty decent example of Soviet lack of imagination and tendency to use frontal attacks.   Throw in use of penal battalions to lead assaults, etc., and the casualty rates climb pretty quickly.   As you said, though, perhaps a subject for a different thread...



Well, the Red Army's embarassing and costly debacle at the Seelow heights follows after the stunning armoured sweeps through Ukraine and Belorussia, and actually wasn't typical of late war Soviet military prowess.   For example, the 1st Guards Tank Army that was hurled into frontal attacks on unsuitable ground at Seelow had only the previous summer conducted a number of lightning advances that outflanked German forces and struck deep into their rear of an entire Army Group in what stands as the ultimate realization of armoured warfare in WWII.

Seelow was a case of Zhukov far from his best, what with his rival Konev making speedy progress to the south, and Stalin breathing down his neck to take Berlin as fast as possible, no matter the cost.   Zhukov thus acted far too hastily and made a number of costly errors out of desperate urgency.   In turn, he was facing one of the greatest defensive commanders of WWII - General Heinrici - at his best.   Some historians consider Heinrici's judgment at Seelow almost flawless.

That's not to say the Russians didn't spend a great deal of manpower, often in a very wasteful manner.  While Soviet commanders did try to conserve combat power (contrary to myth, there was not a bottomless supply) as a rule they were also more callous about expending it than Western Allied or German commanders.  They tried to win through deception, surprise, and superior manuever when possible, but if it wasn't then they were also willing to resort to pure, bloody, brute force.

Zhukov did the latter at Seelow, driven by politics rather than strategy, but his fame comes from his success at the former.


----------



## Acorn (29 Jun 2005)

T.I.M. addressed the Seelowe debacle, which is the exception that proves the rule. The Soviets were actually unlikely to attack in such a way due to the shortage of pers they had. By the time of the assault on Berlin the typical Infantry Division was lucky to field a Regiment in actual strength. They compensated with firepower: an inf regt (bn in size)would have a sqn of JS2 tabks attached, as well as a battery of SP artillery - either 152 JS or tracked 203mm  howitzers in direct support.

If one were to conclude a "Soviet proclivity" to infantry assaults based on Seelowe, what does Kursk indicate about the Germans?

Acorn


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2005)

What constitutes "major ground combat"?


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2005)

T.I.M. said:
			
		

> Actually, "Black Cross, Red Star" puts the numbers at upwards of 60% of the entire Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front until late 1943.   Only by mid '44 it had dropped to about 40% of operational strength on the Eastern Front, and most of the Luftwaffe's best squadrons remained in the East until the end of the war.



Hmm...I got my info here:



> _Moscow never acknowledged that, from late 1943 onwards, only 20 percent of the Luftwaffe was deployed on the Eastern Front, because the remainder was fighting the Western allies over Germany._
> 
> Max Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-1945. pg 10.



Hastings doesn't quote his source in the book, but he's a fairly respectable writer.

I remember seeing the 20% figure in a paper I read that focused on German Air unit production, but I can't remember the name of the paper.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jun 2005)

At the risk of descending into curmudgeonry, Hastings is a good technical writer, but as a journalist by profression is always looking for "the story." He should be read very, very carefully, as he tends to opt for the sensational over the factual.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2005)

Agreed - I got that sense from reading his book.  It flows very well, but the only thing he cites is the quotes by people he interviewed.  Great reading, but not the greatest scholarship (as proof, see my ability to back up my claim against T.I.M., who cites a highly rated history of the Eastern Front).


----------



## STA Gunner (1 Jul 2005)

In defence of Max Hastings, his book on the Falklands War was superb.  He was there, and he offers an excellent platoon/company level description of the war.  But, you would be 100% correct if you said that you had to find other sources for the higher levels though.

I enjoy him as much as I enjoy Pierre Berton for military history.  I just cannot use them extensively for research.


----------



## T.I.M. (4 Jul 2005)

Well, the 20% number could be confusing fighters with the overall strength of the entire Luftwaffe, as a higher percentage of those were moved West to counter the bombers.

I'm going from memory myself but I think for single engine day fighters the numbers were something like three-quarters in the West towards the end of the war.


----------

