decisive battle debate

Welll you couldn't really eat the truck tire but you could burn it to keep warm. Thought I read somewhere that a lot of the log components got pulled out before they were encircled anyway.

 

Now, we are closer to the truth. It appears that both trucks and horses are good, depending on the purpose of an onlooker. But horses steak seems to be better prepared on wood. Truck tires stink awfully when on fire.

Im' not quite sure how the Germans prepared barbecue in the absence of wood?

 

Well, considering that the majority of the horses had been withdrawn from Stalingrad prior to the encirclement, as they placed too great a strain on the logistics, the question then becomes; Fried truck tire or nothing?

 

prove to me that a horse drawn wagon can keep up with a tank unit. If the logistic support for the tanks are limited then the tanks them selves are limited. Ive shown how the Soviets were able to greatly expand their capacity for offense using American trucks, so regardless of German limitations the use of motor vehicles does benefit an army

 

Indeed. Even the fodder went back with the horses. The only choice was boot soles or the truck tires. Rats (Irish stew) were just on Sundays.

 

I am horrified by this argument : it's the argument of LWD,of the lobby of the B2 Bomber,of the Tiger 2 tank ,of those that are saying : the USAF has aircraft A (that's better than the Soviet aircraft B) ,now Lockheed can produce aircraft C that's better than aircraft A,thus the USAF needs aircraft C.Why ? except the fact that this would make Lockheed rich at the cost of the taxpayer.As long as aircraft A was better than aircraft B,there wa no need for C .

It is the same with MT/HDT:in 1940,the Germans defeated the Allies with a combination of MT AND HDT (although the Allies had more MT) .For Barbarossa,some modifications were made : the Army was increased from 150 to 200 divisions,the number of PzD was doubled,but the number of tanks per division was going down (experience had taught the Germans that PzD could function with less tanks) and MT was increased (because there were more divisions) . But,there was no need for a further increase of MT :1940 had proved that one could win with less tanks and MT than the enemy and 1941 would learn that one could win with less tanks than the enemy .In 1941,Germany attacked with 600000 MT and 570000 horses;the Soviet Union had 148000 MT and 245000 horses .

Thus,why would Germany need more MT than the 600000 it already had ?The ratio of MT was 10/3 in the benefit of Germany.Why would a ratio of 12/3 be better ?Saying that this would be better is the same argument of the lobby of SAC during the Cold War : we can destroy the SU 10 times,they can destroy us 3 times ;we need more nucleair bombs and missiles so that we can destroy the SU 12 times .

Saying that one needs more of something because it is better than what one has,is no serious argument : an army can have to much MT,a tank division can have to much tanks :the Soviet tank divisions had to much tanks and in some cases to much MT .

And the argument that the Germans failed because 600000 MT was not enough is wrong :the Ostheer won with 600000 MT,its failure was independant of the number of MT .

The argument of the Soviets and the US LL trucks is also wrong : the Soviets did not advance tol Berlin because they had LL trucks,they would also have advanced to Berlin without LL trucks .

 

Of course you are, it's a reasonable, logical, fact based argument and so anathama to you.

As it stands that arguemt is nonsensical. For instance if aircraft A can achieve a 2:1 victory ration over B then at least in that aspect it is better than B. If aircraft C can achieve a 4:1 victroy ratio then it is, again in that aspect better than A and there is every reason to buy it if it is at least on par with aircraft A in all other ways. If not then one has to evaluate the other criteria and decide if it is truly better if it is then it is clearly desireable.

There is a difference between winnng a battle or even a campaign and defeating an opponent. The Germans did the former but never acomplished the latter. The rest of the paragraph was and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Obviously because their log structure would work better and it would free up troops for other uses and during 41 allow for more rapid advances and inflicting more casualties on the Soviets likely for fewer German ones. Had the Germans actually defeated the Soviets your argument might have some small merit although it would still be questionable overall. Your coldwar example is a straw man by the way.

It rather looks like you don't really understand what the term "better" means. If a system is truly "better" than what you have then you do indeed need it. In the case of a division having too many tanks then it is not better than one with fewer tanks nor are more tanks "better" at that point unless they are acompanied by what ever else is needed to make them more efficient.

I'm not sure anyone has argued that they failed because 600,000 MT was not enough. The argument has been that they failed in part due to an inadequate logistics system. The rest has been previously addressed. As before restating your opinions does nothing to increase their limited or non existant validity.

That is very debateable especially if you include more than trucks in the equation. In any case it is way off topic.

 

Are you sure? If the Soviets had been forced to advance at the horse drawn rate they could not have moved as fast thus the Germans would have had more time to react and set up new lines. I am baffled by your insistence that horse drawn wagons can move at the same rate of trucks. You seem to think that no truck ever works or has fuel and thus is not available. IF horse drawn wagons are so darn efficient why would the Soviets switch to a truck system?? The US army didn't need horse drawn vehicles to advance across France.

 

HDT can advance at the speed of MT,because all divisions were composed by units using MT,using HDT and marching on foot,and usually the speed of the fastest unit was determined by the speed of the slowest unit .While Mot/Panzer Divisions had more MT than ID,they were not fully motorized ,there always were more men advancing on foot than by MT .

Men on truck were the fastest but also the most vulnerable.

Than one had a small group of men (not more than 1000) in tanks:they also were vulnerable.

And they all had to wait on the men on foot who gave the signal all safe.

The US army was not using horse drawn vehicles to advance across France,because it would be impossible to have enough horses :they used MT and men on foot,but,the situation was favorable for the US : there was practically no German resistance after Normandy,thus the tanks and trucks could exchange protection for speed,that's why Patton was going that fast : he could take the risk to advance without the protection of the infantry .

And about Bagration : in june 1944,the Soviets had not switched to a truck system,they had even less MT than 3 years before:

in june 1941,the Soviet operational forces had 2.7 million men and 148000MT of which 106000 trucks = ratio 1/18 for MT and 1/25 for trucks

in june 1944,the Soviet operational forces had 6.75 million men and 295000 MT of which 216000 trucks =ratio 1/23 for MT and 1/ 31 for trucks

In 1941,the same forces had 245000 horses = 1/12 and in 1944,they had 688000 horses = 1/10.


Some historical advances :

Napoleon advanced in 83 days from Brest/Litovsk to Moscow, Hitler needed 166 days .

AGC needed in 1941 27 days to advance from Brest-Litovsk to Smolensk (627 km) =23 km a day

In 1944,it took the Soviets 60 days to go from Smolensk to Warsaw (862 km) = 14 km a day

1940 : PzGr Kleist advanced in 15 days from Luxemburg to Dunkirk (377 km) = 25 km a day

:von Bock advanced in 15 days from Groningen to Dunkirk (373 km) = 25 km a day

Why did the Soviets advancing slower than the Germans in 1941,or 1940? Not because Bock had more MT than the Soviet commanders of Bagration,but because there Bagration faced more German opposition .
Why did Patton advance faster than the others in 1940,1941,1944? Because he faced less opposition .

 

It's really not that hard to use the quote button and you've been here long enough.

That is pure speculation on your part. No logic or fact to support it either. Way off topic as well.

Funny when I read it I see both wagons and tanks mentioned.

Of course there is. It may not be all that accurate but there are quite a few ways of calculating it. Doesn't make that much difference though in regards to the point being made. The fact that those ratios could exists refutes your argument.

Which is of course irrelevant. Strickly an opinon on your part as well but I suspect for once your are correct i.e. an additional 10,000 motor vehicles wouldn't be enough to increase the chance of victory appreciably.

But it is clear that 600,000 weren't enough.

???? What are you talking about? At face value I suspect you are wrong in any case as you have demonstrated no ability at all to prove anything.

 

It's hard to see where the space for the quote ends and where the space fot the comment starts :2 different and clear colours would help


I have given the figures : in 1940 Germany won while it had less MT than the Allies.In 1941,it won and it failed while it had more MT than the SU : thus the number of MT was irrelevant for victory/defeat .

 

In last resort,what's deciding is the number of boots on the ground :in WWI,the teory was that artillery did conquer the terrain and that infantry would occupuy the terrain.Reality was different .It was the same in WWII :a section of infantry could block/delay the advance of a motorized column.

 

And it has been pointed out numerous times that conclusion cannot logically be drawn from the stated premise. Furthermore the stated premise isn't correct.

 

1940 is not a good measure because of the distances involved were no where as great. Why do you keep arguing about victory??? No one said that more trucks would guarantee victory, we are saying more trucks would have been better for the Germans. Are you really trying to say that the Soviet tank units used horse drawn carts in their advances, yes the follow up infantry units did, but the tank and mechanized units, except for the specialized calvary/mech units were entirely motorized.

 

Just my two cents.
- if advancing slowly trucks and horses both have their advantages, horses need fodder but motor vehicles need a huge variety of spares and lack of just one critical piece can immobilize a truck, a horse drawn army requires a much simpler logistical tail, and the Germans do not have a sophisticated logistics system.
- Truck borne troops can move a lot faster than foot infantry if unopposed, IMO that is a major operational advantage, horses cannot keep up with a mechanized advance, so a mixed force like the German army will develop a gap when advancing fast and that allowed a number of Soviet units to escape encirclement. Not sure it would make a big difference.
- Horses are less resource consuming on standby, they are probably able to live off the land except in extreme scorched earth conditions, cavalry armies of previous eras had no massive logistic tails but did not self destruct if idle. trucks left idle far from maintenance depots are likely not to start when needed so a mechanized force will need a much greater "baseline" flow supply.
- The German logistics system East was basically incapable to supply regularly all the forces, so the better "self sustaining" horses were possibly needed to reduce the strain. I also have a suspicion the Germans had given up on the spares issue , a vehicle could either be field repaired from spares the unit had or shipped back as there was no way of getting specific spares to front line units, commanders were obviously reluctant to send back "borderline" cases as they were very likely never to see them again and that created inefficiency.
- Historically the Germans grabbed all the trucks they could lay their hands on, in 1942 many transport companies of the Italian 8th army were diverted to support the Stalingrad effort despite the disadvantages of incompatible equipment, language, command etc. , so they obviously could have used more if they had them.
- Patton's definition of"not enough supplies" and the German one are quite different, a German Panzer commander would consider "capable of one more effort" troops that would be classed as "combat ineffective" by US standards, the Panzers in 1941 often resumed the advance after the Luftwaffe had delivered a few drums of fuel and well before the supply columns had caught up. Some German operational successes were achieved by motorized "Kampfgruppe" operating far in advance of the out of fuel main body.

 

So why not simply abandon the tank altogether and go with all cavalry, ??, Ive repeatedly said because the Germans did not have the industry to motorize their tank forces does not mean that that motorized units are not useful. The biggest issue between the tankers and non tankers in Barbarossa was there were not enough motorized units to go around, the tankers wanted to keep moving, but the foot infantry could not advance fast enough to be able to seal the pockets so the tanks had to perform tasks that they were not suited for. Horses cannot move at the same rate as trucks, nor can they carry as much. I don't know why that is so ignored. Could Patton's army had advanced as far as it did as quickly as it did if he had to rely on horse drawn supply?? But heck trucks never work and they never have fuel so I guess the advance was all an illusion

 

1) As no one said this,it's a strawman

2)No one said that motorized units are not useful

3)That's not correct :the problem was that the motorized units could not protect the tanks

4)This is the same as saying :it's cold in the winter and warm in the summer

The original claim was that more MT would have benefited the Germans in 1941 in the SU .No one has been able to prove this claim,all we have is a lot of people saying that MT was faster than horses,which,although it is true,does not prove that more MT would have benefited the Germans :as long as the Soviets were fighting,MT was advancing at the speed of the soldier marching on foot.
Only when the Soviets were on the run,could MT use its trump = speed .But,as it happened very seldom that the Soviets were on the run,the benefit of more MT was mostly illusory.

What would have happen if the Germans had more MT ? If the Germans had 100000 MT more,than the half would be needed by the supply forces,because more MT would need more supplies . The rest could be used to move more men faster .But what would be the benefit of moving more men faster ?It would only increase the distortion between the number of men using MT and the number of men marching on foot (the majority).

In 1941,the motorised units were in the position of the British cavalry units who were waiting (mostly vainly) during WWII for a gap in the German frontline and a chance for pursuing a defeated and fleeing enemy : if the enemy was not defeated/fleeing,it would be suicidal for the Cavalry to pursue him .It was the same for the PzD and Mot Divisions .The preparatory work had to be done by infantry and artillery,only if these had defeated the enemy,could the cavalry of 1941 appear

 

That's what I am repeating and repeating,but what the motorised lobby refuses to accept .

It's the same for the tanks :tanks could move faster than foot infantry if unopposed .

 

Just because Germany didn't have the industry to motorize doesn't mean that they could not have been useful. My point about opposition is that you can still move troops faster with trucks from place to place which was a big weakness for the Germans, which is why I say they could have used more trucks and APC's