Well knew we would get to the bottom of WW2 at some point... Hitler was a soviet spy! Simple!

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

LOL - That's rich - he was a closet commie - the plan was to destroy Germany from the inside with a ridiclous policital movement, thereby eliminating the only serious threat to the western expansion of communism! I think we're on to something -

Anyone have any info on how many and where the Pershings were in ETO by the VE-day?

__________________
"I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience." - Admiral Wilhelm Canaris

General quoted some 900 aircraft lost by the russians during the Berlin offensive.Seems a little high considering that the Luftwaffe was pretty much out of it then. As for Red's pic of the Pershing,that one and a couple others are very publicised.The Pershing destroyed a Panther in the streets of Cologne to the joy of the camera crew riding behind in a jeep.Not the best place for open country tanks like Pershings or Tigers.

__________________

Framert:

Most of those 900 planes must have been lost due to accidents, AA and ground fire.

Also, take into consideration that the fighting extended for two weeks and over a very wide front. But Erich can surely tell us about Luftwaffe sorties in these days.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Drache...

I have a source that states 20 Pershings sent to ETO in January 1945 as part of Zebra mission. The first combat occurred in February. Was used by the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions. 310 were eventually deployed in Europe. Also saw action on Okinawa.

On the Pershing...

" The M26 Pershing was the culmination of the T20 series of test vehicles. The T26 series was reclassed from medium to heavy tanks on June 29, 1944, but renamed as medium tanks in May 1946. Although not standardized until March 1945, Pershings had been sent to the European Theater of Operations as T26E3s with the Zebra Mission in January 1945 (along with equipment including pilot models of the 155mm GMC M40 and 8" HMC M43). M26 was armed with the same 90mm gun as the M36 tank destroyer, and the GAF engine in the M26 was essentially the GAA of the medium tank M4A3 redesigned to present a lower height, even though M26 weighed almost 26,000lbs (12,000kg) more than M4A3. This produced an underpowered and relatively unreliable tank. The drive sprocket of the M26 was mounted below the level of the track's upper run, and the engine exhaust escaped through an opening in the hull rear plate. A bulge in the hull glacis between the drivers housed an exhaust blower."

"Developed as the successor of the M4 Sherman at the end of WWII was a tank that finally promised to hold up against the wrath of the German Tiger I and Panther tanks of the German army. This tank, which was on the forefront of the mechanized combat technology of its time and reigned supreme in the world of armor, was the U.S. Medium Tank M26 Pershing.

The Pershing was first deployed to the European front on February 1945 as part of the effort to invade the German homeland. The M26 Pershing engaged Tiger I and Pz.kpfw. IV tanks during the fight to cross Hohenzollern Bridge over the Rhine. The battle in which the M26 Pershing showed particularly critical influence, was that of the Ludendorf Bridge in Remagen. In this offensive, five supporting M26 Pershing tanks rained shells onto the opposite side of the river bank, paving the way for ground troops who moved in to seize the bridge. The Pershing, of which 200 were used against Germany until its surrender, was also deployed to the front of the war in the Pacific.

M26 Pershing Tanks were immediately deployed when the Korean War began in June 1950. Until July 1953, the M26 fought successfully alongside the M4A3E8 Easy Eight and the M46 Patton with the main forces of United Nations against the rival T34/85 Soviet built tanks of the North Korean and Chinese volunteer armies.
From November 1944 until June 1945, a total of 1190 units were produced. The Pershing was well balanced for defense with its 127mm thick armor and for assault with the sheer firepower of its M3 90mm gun. Equipped with a Ford GAF liquid cooled gasoline engine and torsion bar suspension, this tank exhibited incredible mobility. As such, the M26 served as a model for the designs of the M46, M48, and M60 tanks. It can even be said that the engineering of the M26 served as a foundation for current U.S. tank designs, such as that of the dominant M1 Abrams Tank."

Something small on Zebra Mission...

"In the Fall of 1944, production of the T26E3 had begun at the Fisher Tank Arsenal.
By January, 1945, forty of these tanks had been produced. Twenty went to Fort Knox for testing and the other twenty went to war in Belgium for 'Trial by Fire'.
General Bradley divided the twenty tanks equally between the 3d Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division."




One of 3rd Armies Pershing's...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Once again, I am new to this forum, but I have a few facts to add here. First, the manpower issue. The soviets had more or less used up thier military age reserves. The U.S. however, only lost 450,000. Gen. Ikes policy of not drafting married men at the onset of the war was about to be reversed due to the battle of the Bulge. This frees up approximately 4 million more men. The Navy, and Air force would only receive minimal amounts of these since they were already at a level of dominace throughout the world. Yes folks, the U.S. Army would receive probably about 3million of these men to beef up thier ranks and open new divisions. And we arent even digging yet for manpower. You must also realize that once the West easily wins the first few battles, the Eastern european nations would gladly follow along. The west obviously wouldnt turn the rifles on the newly conquered lands as the Nazis did. As a matter of fact, a majority of the early satellite nations populace wished to join the germans to remove stallin from power. Thats even more manpower to add to the growing pool that the US could easily equip. I know this not from reading books, but because my grandmother was born and raised in kiev, ukraine and would tell me how much she hated communists even before the war broke out. She said the men in her village all tried to help the nazis at first but soon realized this was a mistake. Couple this with overwhelming air superiority and tactics, the russians wouldnt stand a chance.

Dont write those pesky Ivans off so easily BigBert...

Interesting to hear your Grandmothers comments. I imagine alot of people felt that way till the true nature of the German occupation became apparent.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Bert,

What you say is true. But that still supports my arguments, since those 3 million men you're mentioning would have taken time to be drafted, trained, equipped, transferred across the ocen and finally, deployed at the front. Meanwhile, Ike's 85 divisions would have received a very, very big kick in the ass. Then after six months and many victories by the Red Army, the tide would have changed in favour of the West.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

just thought I'd add a reply to a post on this i read earlier. yes its true it took a couple months for the allies to break out of the hedgrows. But everyone forgets, we had no land bridge to england, and one of our man made piers was destroyed in a storm. This left us with only one. Imagine trying to supply 9 divisions with just one man made pier! It was a logistical nightmare. Let alone trying to land more divisions. People are quick to point this out, but look realistically, we had no ports!! Once we had Antwerp, it was all over, and the Germans knew it, perhaps this was why the battle of bulge was aimed at capturing the port? Lets also not forget the terrain itself. I have personally seen the hedgrows and they are perfectly set up for defensive operations. It was not the Us soldiers ill will to fight. Just a prepared area of operations the germans had 4 years to prepare! And on the quality of troops? Does anyone here not know about 101st airborne holding off for a week, 6 german infantry and armor divisions?? No air support, no resupply? Whoever made the comment about americans will to fight obviously has more reading to do.

At the absolute best, the Soviets in a scenario like this would advance 250 to 300 km and then grind to a halt for 6 months while their logistical train, such as it was, caught up. This pattern is repeated with every offensive they launched in World War 2. It would be unreasonable to expect anything different in this scenario. Thus, the best the Soviets could do was maybe make the Rhine and sit.
Then, it would be the West's turn to bury them in a counter offensive. Just some other numbers: The US had just over 1 million troops in Naval Construction Battalions (who are also trained as infantry). There are almost 1 million soldiers in the US in various units not shipped overseas in 1945. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that by late 1946 the US alone could have had 200 to 250 divisions in service if they really wanted or needed to.
Also, the Soviets face a real problem in that they would find themselves in a two or three front war very quickly. What happens when Sakalin Island falls (20 - 25% of their oil supply)? What happens when their Siberian troops are cut off by bombing the @$#@ out of the single rail line supporting them?
Another real possibility is a Black Sea / Iranian / Turkish invasion as well. Unlike the Allies, the Soviets have only limited ability to move their troops strategically. Look at how long it took them to move East for their invasion of Manchuria. And, that was unopposed.
In the short term the Soviets stand to make minor gains in such a war. In the long term they lose big.

Let's not forget either,that the U.S. is still facing a homeland invasion of Japan[[No a-bomb].That will tie down quite a few divisions,eh? Some one said "remember the Alies had to cross the channel".....first off,that was with NO enemy shooting at them.Secondly, the English channel is no where near the vastness of Russia.The Allies used trucks[famous Red ball express]to get gasoline up to the lines,burning up 2 gallons for every 1 gallon they carried.Where were these "Seabee pipelines"?

__________________

Wot, wot, would the Soviet Union be confronted with the Western Faceless Hordes?

__________________

Yes but they beat the Germans that way. I know, I know, I'm being simplistic.

More Western Faceless Hordes [img]smile.gif[/img] . You need more than riflemen (ex-Seabees) to make up a fightin' infantry division, you need trained staff, artillery, signals, logistics, etc. So you can release the manpower with basic training, but you need to complement that. Granted, it's possible given time. But where are you going to bomb from?

Here you got me. The Sakhalins would be gone. As for the Orient Express line, ok, it could be bombed, but it could be repaired. Problem would be bombing the marshalling yards and rail material parks, after that you could no longer repair this extremely long and vulnerable tether.


Right, but then I can't see how sustainable would an Allied offensive from Iran would be due to lack of roads, lack of objectives, etc. Now, if you could drag Turkey in the business that would be a problem with an invasion from the Black Sea.

Your theories could be debated, but you raise some new and interesting points which deserve thought.

__________________

Taking strategy ...
Even if the Russians could force themselves to the Rhine - they are vulnerable to the North. By 1945 the Allies had become experts at amphibious operations thought their expereinces in Normandy and in the Pacific. The soviet navy was - putting it lightly - not on par with the Allies after WW2. Amphibious landings into Poland could potentially slice soviet forces in half. Not sure about terrain on the Polish coast - but the Germans had sucsessful amphibious operations in the Baltic in October 1917. Any thoughts on this?

__________________
"I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience." - Admiral Wilhelm Canaris

BigBert,

Which 'Panzer Divisions' did the 101st hold off for a week?

Also have you read Micheal D. Doublers book, 'GI in Action' on US combat effectiveness? While no-one doubts the fighting effectiveness of units such as 101st, 82nd or 1st Infantry Division, certain US formations did have a poor reputation, the ratio of those actually firing at the enemy for instance. The same is true of British divisions, and indeed German.

The point is that all nations have good troops, and all nations have bad.

I highly recommended Doublers book, it gives an excellent review of US effectiveness in North-West Europe from D-Day to VE day.

I visit Normandy every year and although the beaches were 'prepared', poorly in some parts, the interior relied on the Bocage for defensive tactics. I wouldnt say that the interior was prepared for 4 years, indeed some of the beaches had very little in the way of defences in some areas, often just trenches and beach obstacles, it was not all huge concrete bunkers and thick impassable hedges.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I would also point out that there is very little 'true' bocage left in Normandy, I have been told by the mayor of Moncy that only one square mile of true bocage remains in an area classified as a nature reserve. The hedges that remain are still impressive yet smaller than they once were.

As an aside a colleague of mine on the Normandy module we run at uni, told me that you can tell the original thickness of bocage hedges by looking for woodland flowers along the grass verges, these will give an indication as to the original width.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

And even so, they did not prepare their defences adequately due to severe lack of resources and a three front war.

I don't think no one ever said anything against US or British troops' quality or fighting spirit. They were in fact, much more superior to the German forces they were facing. But what I mean is that Great Britain did not have enough human resources to fight the USSR. The US did have the resources, but I do not think the public opinion back home would have liked to see weekly casualties lists of 5 damned cyphers.

This is true and I do believe that this would have happened, but in those first six months, Ike's 85 divisions would have been smashed. The initial blow would have been 30 Battles of the Bulge combined!

Indeed. But how could such a thing happen before six months of the conflict's beginning? We face again the same situation, this is something that would have given the Allies complete victory in the long term. But also we have to take into account that without an A-bomb the US would still have to invade Japan, and that recquired 5 times more planning, men and matériel than D-day… The US and British Pacific Fleets would have had to be reinforced by warships and amphibious craft, from where? The Atlantic fleets.

Exactly. Defence within Normandy was so effective because the Germans fought a well-co-ordinated, mobile defence in depth, using terrain advantage as they did in Italy and as they could never do in the east.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

[quote]Originally posted by General der Infanterie Frieddy the Froggy:

Quote:

. But also we have to take into account that without an A-bomb the US would still have to invade Japan, and that recquired 5 times more planning, men and matériel than D-day… The US and British Pacific Fleets would have had to be reinforced by warships and amphibious craft, from where? The Atlantic fleets.

Yes, but was the A-bomb really necessary? Was invasion an absolute necessity? Japan was completely blockaded, no foodstuffs, oil, metals, etc were being imported thanks to the submarine campaign. The B-29s were grinding or setting fire to anything that was above ground. I see no point for an invasion, it was only a matter of time before everyone starved.

The Russians took care of Manchuria. The Japs in China had nowhere to go. In Burma they were gone. The island garrisons that remained could be left to wither on the vine.

There was no other course but surrender.

The only reason the US might want Japan in the context of this thread would be for a fine base off the Sov. Pacific Coast.

__________________

Well, certainly surrender by starvation was not within the plans of the Imperial Staff, nor most of the Japanese people. A country willing to destroy itself in the process of defeating its enemy, blockaded or not, is very dangerous. And Okinawa was a very good proof of it.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun