Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

[D-Mack]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

+1. In spite of all of the wartime propaganda to the contrary, the US won WW II by way of massive production of wartime materials, not by fighting or tactical skill. In fact, Germans were much better fighters than Americans. IIRC, by a factor of 5 or 6.

The situation is probably worse today than it was back then. In spite of Vietnam and the conflicts since then, the US military still seems to be stuck in the failed tactics of WW II. When combined with modern politics you get things like selective targeting and crippling rules of engagement. It's a joke.

I was reminded of it when I watched "PBS The War",but I don't know if the Germans could fight better

Hürtgen Forest
(12 September-16 December 1944)
See all related items »
Although it is little remembered today, the battle for the Hürtgen Forest was one of the worst defeats ever suffered by the U.S. Army. In three months of combat operations, the Americans sustained almost 33,000 casualties but accomplished almost nothing tactically or operationally in the process.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5224.htm

[Sharky]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

While I agree US production was the primary reason the allies won WWII, to say Germans were "much better fighters by a factor of 5 or 6" is just plain wrong. Where do you get this?

I might be remembering the number wrong -- maybe it's only 2 or 3 to 1. My memory of it was that was not an overall number, but came from a study of evenly-matched battles. I do recall that there were cases in Africa where the numbers were much worse, maybe 10 to 1.

In Europe, the Allies lost around 2.5 tanks for every German tank lost.

A survey of tank warfare in Europe from D-Day to 12 Aug 44, by John Salt shows engagement ratios of 2.5 or more Allied units for every German unit were needed to win.

I still don't get this idea that you think the US military is stuck in the failed tactics of WW 2.

Emphasis on Aircraft carriers
Use of Tanks
Emphasis on artillery, including naval
The concept of "air superiority"
Carpet bombing

Those are all WW2-derived strategies that are still in use today. Most are cost-ineffective against geographically-distributed and entrenched enemies.

[medved]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Look what happened with Israel in Lebanon a few years ago. A modern army encountered a determined enemy equipped with cheap missiles in great numbers. They lost, despite their superiority in just about everything. Tanks, big ships and planes are not cost effective in the age of cheap missiles.

1. They did not lose, it was a draw.
2. Cheap missiles were effective against Israeli tanks, because the tanks were not equipped with the available protection system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TROPHY_...tection_System

3. A major constraint in this type of war is always the willingness of Western armies to minimize civilian causalties. It will not always be the case, and when it is not the case, Israel will use more heavy artillery and less tanks. As a result they will have less losses.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

While I agree US production was the primary reason the allies won WWII, to say Germans were "much better fighters by a factor of 5 or 6" is just plain wrong. Where do you get this? Were some veteran German units better than the greenest American units? Certainly, but contrary to what is portrayed on the History Channel, not all German units the US faced were elite Waffen SS or even veterans . At the end of the war most Germans units were of rather poor quality and still dragging around artillery and equipment primarily with horses. The Wehrmacht America faced was a mere shell of what it was at its peak, but at no time in its history was it 5-6 times as effective as the American Army.:rolleyes:

Hi flintlock,

5-6 times as effective is myth on all counts except perhaps the summer of 1941 against the Russians. After that point the Germans were OK at 2 to 1 in 1942 but no more even against the best of the Wehrmacht. If they were fighting near Germany perhaps but not deep in Soviet territory where the Germans were unprepared. Germany kept getting out classed in armor tactically with lousy under powered pak 37mm and pak 50mm AT guns against state of the art Soviet armor. Their Mark III and Mark IV tanks along with the trucks were terrible for Russian terrain. Superior leadership and tactical efficiency did make Germany a superior fighting force till some time in 43 but Germans were not consistently facing forces 5 or 6 times their size. When they did the Germans were in trouble.

[D-Mack]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

1. They did not lose, it was a draw.
2. Cheap missiles were effective against Israeli tanks, because the tanks were not equipped with the available protection system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TROPHY_...tection_System

3. A major constraint in this type of war is always the willingness of Western armies to minimize civilian causalties. It will not always be the case, and when it is not the case, Israel will use more heavy artillery and less tanks. As a result they will have less losses.

I don't know if they used cheap missiles, I remember there were countless of speculations on the types of missiles used.

Most people thought it were Russian made fly by wire missiles. Edit: + US made TOW

Equipment — Hezbollah was no longer
a guerrilla force. The IR fighter’s individual
weapon was the AK-47 assault rifle. IR
fighters were also armed with individual
anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7,
RPG-9, TOW, AT-3, AT-4, AT-5, AT-13, and
the AT-14. The IR anti-aircraft arsenal
consisted of the SA-7 Strela-2, ZU-23 AA
guns, S-60 57mm AA guns, and possibly
the SA-18 Grail. IR medium and longrange
rockets consisted of the 122mm
Katyusha, the 240mm Fajr-3, the Fajr-5,
the Zelzal-2, and the Syrian-made Uragan missile. IR anti-ship
missiles consisted of the C-802 and C-701. IR air assets consisted
of the Mirsad-1 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which is capable
of surveillance and observation. On the other hand, the Israeli
military is a modern, fully-equipped force with the latest weapons
and equipment. Israel has a lot of U.S.-manufactured equipment
and produces top-quality military systems of its own.

http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/round2.pdf

[flintlock]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

I might be remembering the number wrong -- maybe it's only 2 or 3 to 1. My memory of it was that was not an overall number, but came from a study of evenly-matched battles. I do recall that there were cases in Africa where the numbers were much worse, maybe 10 to 1.

In Europe, the Allies lost around 2.5 tanks for every German tank lost.

A survey of tank warfare in Europe from D-Day to 12 Aug 44, by John Salt shows engagement ratios of 2.5 or more Allied units for every German unit were needed to win.

You have to understand that in Africa, the US troops were absolutely raw, no experience, and the Afrika corps was some of the best German troops. So yes, it was a mismatch, but not at all typical of the rest of the war.

Yes, German armor was better tank vs tank in most regards, but you have to look at more than just tanks losses. Contrary to popular belief, most fighting was not tank vs tank. American artillery and air power dominated the fighting. Most of the German armor was destroyed from the air long before any ground fighting took place. Or they ran out of fuel. Logistics is just important as fighting ability in warfare and the US was far superior in that regard.

Read about the Falise pocket for example "The once-powerful 12th SS Panzer Division had lost 94 percent of its armour, nearly all of its artillery, and 70 percent of its vehicles. Mustering close to 20,000 men and 150 tanks before the Normandy campaign, after Falaise it was reduced to 300 men and 10 tanks.Although elements of several German formations had managed to escape eastward to the Seine, even these had left behind most of their equipment."

Almost never did the Germans inflict anything close this kind of casualties on American forces. Despite being on the defense, and in many cases sitting behind well prepared defensive sites, the Americans consistently inflicted defeat after defeat on the German Army. A lot of that had to do with superior air power of the Allies, and yes production, but its generally agreed that by 1944 the American Army was every bit the match for the German Army and probably superior in most regards. They were using 15 year old kids and old men by that point.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

At the end of the war most Germans units were of rather poor quality and still dragging around artillery and equipment primarily with horses. The Wehrmacht America faced was a mere shell of what it was at its peak, but at no time in its history was it 5-6 times as effective as the American Army.:rolleyes:

At the end of the war, many divisions consisted of old men and children, and still had some remarkable victories despite their reliance on draft animals.

And for the record, Germany never had sufficient oil to use it for anything other than powering combat vehicles. Where train service (coal power) was not feasible, horses and oxen were always used for logistical purposes. This was true from the very beginning.

[flintlock]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Hi flintlock,

5-6 times as effective is myth on all counts except perhaps the summer of 1941 against the Russians. After that point the Germans were OK at 2 to 1 in 1942 but no more even against the best of the Wehrmacht. If they were fighting near Germany perhaps but not deep in Soviet territory where the Germans were unprepared. Germany kept getting out classed in armor tactically with lousy under powered pak 37mm and pak 50mm AT guns against state of the art Soviet armor. Their Mark III and Mark IV tanks along with the trucks were terrible for Russian terrain. Superior leadership and tactical efficiency did make Germany a superior fighting force till some time in 43 but Germans were not consistently facing forces 5 or 6 times their size. When they did the Germans were in trouble.

You're preaching to the choir on this.

[flintlock]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

At the end of the war, many divisions consisted of old men and children, and still had some remarkable victories despite their reliance on draft animals.

And for the record, Germany never had sufficient oil to use it for anything other than powering combat vehicles. Where train service (coal power) was not feasible, horses and oxen were always used for logistical purposes. This was true from the very beginning.

Link on the forces facing the US on the Western Front in 44. http://cghs.dadeschools.net/normandy...omposition.htm

Interesting to note is that 1 in 6 riflemen were in "Ost" battalions consisting of Russian prisoners, Poles, even Koreans. I've wargamed that theater extensively over the years. The Germans had some good units, but for the most part they were undersupplied, had poor mobility, and were on their last legs. Considering their situation, they fought quite well. But if the allies had completed the encirclement of the Falise pocket, the war would have pretty much been over by 1944, six months after landing!

As an example of the poor supply problems the Germans faced, I have in my possession a Dutch carbine made in 1900. It was given to me by a friend who fought in France in WWII and captured it from the Germans. They were reduced to using obsolete Dutch weapons to arm some troops in France.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

So,

Going back to the original premise that the US has never won when evenly matched, two thoughts:

1) When unevenly matched, do you plan on taking on the enemy at their strongest point? No, of course, not. If their infantry is stronger, you use air support. If their tanks are better you overwhelm them with numbers, you break their codes, You recruit enemy scientists. You use all of your advantages. Military, industrial, social, intellectual....

2) Granted, the US ultimately turns the tide of our wars with industrial might, but you have to give credit to the troops and commanders that fought the early days of our wars; inexperienced and under-supplied they fought brave holding actions even offensives with a grim determination that surprised the enemy planners.

Time and time again our opponents thought the US didn't have the belly for war and would withdraw from the field quickly, only to find out exactly how determined the US can be. The list of people who made that mistake is long: British Parliament, the Confederacy, the Nazi's, the Japanese, the Soviets, al-Qaeda.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Greg,

That the US won in many of its direct conflicts is indisputable.

But let's not forget the relative sizes:

German population in 1940: 79M (including Austria)
US population in 1940: 132M

Population of 'South' in 1861: 9M + 3.5M slaves
Population of 'North' in 1861: 22M

Population of the Soviet Union in 1969: 239.5M
Population of the US in 1969: 202M

Note how in every case except the last, the US was taking on a significantly smaller opponent - and this is excluding allies.

In the Soviet Union case, it can also be disputed that the USSR was actually larger; a significant part of that population could be considered subject and not 'patriotic': Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Baltics, etc.

Of course this is all irrelevant; the past is the past.

But the geopolitical picture today (2007) is quite different:

EU: 495M
US: 300M
China: 1.3B
Japan: 127M
Russia: 142M
Brazil: 191M

The US is no longer facing both numerically and industrially smaller opponents. Industrially smaller - yes for the most part, although data is distorted by the relative strength/weakness of the dollar.

But population times industry...no

Some interesting figures.

world manufacturing output 1900.jpg

World manufacturing output 2005.bmp

The last from: http://ami.ust.hk/Archived%20Journal...g%20Output.pdf

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Excellent point, in earlier days, the US had either industrial superiority or the ability to spool up quickly. That advantage is thinning.

The biggest challenge the US faces, diplomatically and in terms of military dominance, is that perhaps the days of Pax Americana are in decline.

With the US too poor or too stretched thin, other regional powers (Japanese, S. Koreans, Chinese, Indians, Russians, Turks, etc, will begin building up their own military.

They will do this partly because they can't count of the US defense umbrella, partly to take advantage of a distracted US. We may see more military buildups around the world and more regional conflicts, which was, I guess, what this thread originally intended to point out.

[VIT]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

1. One addition to "US never had an even war". The another difference between old powers and US that US had never had a war for survival or/and on the own soil and even never threaten so.

2. Blackvoid raised a good point. Military expenditures does not directly translates to military power. Some planes could be 3-5 times more expensive than other planes but unlikely that much more efficient. One cheap missile could destroy very expensive ship/plane/tank.

Very cost efficient weapon has been created already: hydrogen bomb, just have some drawbacks.


--------------

I recalled the idea of Stanislav Lem (he wrote Solaris) which he expressed in humours form in his since fiction books. The weapon is getting more and more expensive so one day nobody could afford it. Then countries decide to put military race on the moon with robots and no draining of earth resources. The only problem after some years they do not know who is winning

[FRED]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

1. One addition to "US never had an even war". The another difference between old powers and US that US had never had a war for survival or/and on the own soil and even never threaten so.

2. Blackvoid raised a good point. Military expenditures does not directly translates to military power. Some planes could be 3-5 times more expensive than other planes but unlikely that much more efficient. One cheap missile could destroy very expensive ship/plane/tank.

Very cost efficient weapon has been created already: hydrogen bomb, just have some drawbacks.


--------------

I recalled the idea of Stanislav Lem (he wrote Solaris) which he expressed in humours form in his since fiction books. The weapon is getting more and more expensive so one day nobody could afford it. Then countries decide to put military race on the moon with robots and no draining of earth resources. The only problem after some years they do not know who is winning

Worth keeping an eye on:

Despite the Russian military's diminishing production capabilities and financial resources, the country maintains design-technology superiority in other areas, such as new weapons systems for both surface ships and submarines. These include new ship-borne cruise missiles and a supersonic torpedo, Shkval, that is unsurpassed in speed and efficiency. - CIA Will Continue Search for New Russian Technologies

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

You're preaching to the choir on this.

Hi flintlock,

I was just singing along with you since you carried the tune.