WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos

Jura, I don't think it is an issue to take sides; it is all fair and dandy. ...
yeah, I'm sorry I was grumpy while writing that post

Historically, recently the USSR had dominated eastern Europe. But lest we forget that Russia lost a war to Poland in the 1930s, they were seriously invaded by Germany (Hitler), France (Napoleon), Sweden (Charles XII), Catholics (order of the Teutonic knights 14-15th century - from Holy Roman Empire i.e. Germany)... the mistrust and amenity runs deep.

...

oh sure, it had been one thousand years of fighting ... just one detail on the Polish share: the Polish--Soviet War was concluded in March 1921 (and established the eastern Polish border until, well, http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mil...-startegy-discussions-22-6728.html#post305177 and by the way, Poland almost lost that war -- as a consequence of the controversial push for Kiev in 1920; just one interesting thing here (by interesting I mean something not covered by wikipedia :) I have a booklet describing a river battle, The Battle on Pripyat River, which took place in April of 1920 near ... Chernobyl, yes, the nuclear power plant Chernobyl, I'm not kidding you)

EDIT
oops, now I found out the Polish wikipedia mentioned that battle LOL (under "Chernobyl" entry though)
 
Last edited:

Lezt

Junior Member
Jura,

NP, we all have grumpy days.

I am always fascinated by eastern European history and others which deviates from the western narrative.

this is a great book to read:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Its is a day-by-day (not literally) narrative of the destruction of the soviet armor core in Ukraine during Barbarossa, and it touches on German intelligence, false commands to the soviet army groups and soviet counter intelligence.
 
...

this is a great book to read:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Its is a day-by-day (not literally) narrative of the destruction of the soviet armor core in Ukraine during Barbarossa, and it touches on German intelligence, false commands to the soviet army groups and soviet counter intelligence.

thanks, also for bringing this thread back to WW2 :) but ... before last Christmas I purchased some very interesting book on Wilhelm Canaris, was able to read one third of it back then, and only this or next week I'll find some time to finish it (which is uncertain), my point is the number of interesting books grows much faster than I could read them LOL (I'm a complete amateur of history ... another "complication" is I do four languages)

as for the German attack ... I've read Heinz Guderian in "Achtung, Panzer!" (1937) at first put the estimate of 17,000 tanks to be available to the Red Army, but he changed this to 10,000 (which wasn't believed either) ... but the German problem was his initial estimate was pretty accurate! (for example, according to some credible Russian source, on June 1, 1941, just in the Western Special Military District there were 10540 combat-ready tanks, 2157 of them were "brand new")
 

Lezt

Junior Member
thanks, also for bringing this thread back to WW2 :) but ... before last Christmas I purchased some very interesting book on Wilhelm Canaris, was able to read one third of it back then, and only this or next week I'll find some time to finish it (which is uncertain), my point is the number of interesting books grows much faster than I could read them LOL (I'm a complete amateur of history ... another "complication" is I do four languages)

as for the German attack ... I've read Heinz Guderian in "Achtung, Panzer!" (1937) at first put the estimate of 17,000 tanks to be available to the Red Army, but he changed this to 10,000 (which wasn't believed either) ... but the German problem was his initial estimate was pretty accurate! (for example, according to some credible Russian source, on June 1, 1941, just in the Western Special Military District there were 10540 combat-ready tanks, 2157 of them were "brand new")

Another book which will interest you greatly is:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A autobiography of a polish boy captured by the red army when he was trying to escape the partition of Poland and eventually ending up in Canada. (my copy which I lent my friend a decade ago had not been returned)

The issue with statistics and USSR especially is that; there are some truth in the figures, but it is easily manipulated.

Without Voldka will show some of those, and Iron Triangle, will show the other stuff like, what good is a tank when you do not issue fuel to it? or sending tanks into battle with only training rounds, or crews were only trained for 2 hours before sending them into battle, etc.? I mean, if I am in a F22, I would most likely lose to the Red Baron in his triplane because I probably won't be able to take off and sit at an airstrip.

Another thing is, a soviet division is not the same as a german division or a comonwealth division or a us divison or a japanese division or a chinese division.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
nominal real strength of typical divisions, not the end of war, or campaign decimated formations. These are combat strength not including support and auxiliary, e.g. for every american combat troop, he have a support troop of ~3 people imeadiately behind the front line (cooks, hospital staffs, guards, reserves etc), while germany is closer to 1:1 while the USSR is more like 1:0.5

Soviet divisions are around 5000-8000 men, online sources quote:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese divisions are around 8000-9000 men
German divisions are around 13000-17000 men
German Super divisions are around 20000 men (Lehr, Wiking, Grossdeutschland etc)
British divisions are around 13,000 men
US Division around 15,000 men
Japanese Divison around 11000 men

They were also supplied differently:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

With american divisions grossly oversupplied compared to other nations

They also have very different firepower, e.g. German rifles units were bolt action rifled armed, supported by a MMG (MG34 & MG42), and many varied disposable antitank weapon. American rifles, were with semiautomatic rifles and specailist with automatic rifles, bazookas, and SMGs. The divisions had different artillery, HMG, and others support.

So in general, combat effectiveness of a German division is around 1.3-1.5 that of an British/American division, A german division is around 4X the combat effectiness of a Russian division. A romanian/finish division is around 2X that of a russian division (doesn't mean they were better than the British/American, e.g. the Panther tank was mainly retained in the western front, and the eastern front soldier on with Panzer IVs i.e. the stronger german divisions are in western europe where the supply lines are shorter). A Japanese division is around 3X Chinese division, An American division is around 2-4X that of a Japanese division (marines are different from army). And it varies with time too, the Japanese division of 1939 is easily 2X that of a british division in Asia.

My point is, we have to look pass the stats.
 
you did your homework, Lezt :) so just one thing here:

...

Soviet divisions are around 5000-8000 men, ...

I read the Red Army Rifle Divisions actually used only two Battalions, each with its own Artillery, because there weren't enough sufficiently experienced Commanders able to properly coordinate three Battalions plus the action of one Artillery Battalion ... I'm talking 1941-2 now and just repeating what I've recently read
 

delft

Brigadier
Organisation and equipment of military units of fighting countries changed considerably during WWII so generalisation in descriptions of these should be a sign that such descriptions are of little value.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Let me recommend:


thewar.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is a magnificently done, seven part (each episode being around two hours long) documentary about World War II and the United States. oit takes the experiences of four town and cities around the United States, and their citizens who went to war and the people who were at home, and documents their experiences through every major campaign of the war by the United States.

You can watch all of it on Netflix or PBS.

I can not say enough about the fantastic amount of detail and material, pictures, war videos, etc. in this work. it would be worth anyone's time to see it, if you have any interest in World war II history.

Here is a PBS, 26 minute perview of the whole series on youtube:

 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
A sobering thought for folks...by these statistics, I am sure there were people thinking that the carrier was obsolete in 1942. But was we know, it wasn't then...and it isn't now.

Anyhow by June, 1942, five of the United States' first eight carriers had been sunk in the Pacific War:

The first eight, their commissioning date and disposition are as follows:

CV-1, USS Langley, 1922, Sunk Feb 27, 1942 south of Cilicap, Java
CV-2, USS Lexington
, 1927, Sunk May 8, 1942 in the Battle of the Coral Sea
CV-3 USS Saratoga, 1927, Decommissioned 1946, Nuclear SINKEX 1946
CV-4, USS Ranger, 1934, Decommissioned 1946, Scrapped 1947
CV-5, USS Yorktown, 1937, Sunk June 7, 1942 in the Battle of Midway
CV-6, USS Enterprise, 1938, Decommissioned 1947, Scrapped 1960
CV-7, USS Wasp, 1940, Sunk September 15, 1942 in the Guadalcanal Campaign
CV-8, USS Hornet
, 1941, Sunk Oct 27, 1942 in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands


CV2-Lexington.jpg

CV7-Wasp.jpg

The US Navy lost five carriers in the Pacific from February 1942 through October 1942. As I say...sobering.

By comparison, in that same general time frame, from May 1942 through August 1942, the Japanese lost six carriers:

IJS Shoho, Sunk May 6, 1942 in the Battle of the Coral Sea
IJS Soryu, Sunk June 4, 1942 in the Battle of Midway
IJS Akagi, Sunk June 5, 1942 in the Battle of Midway
IJS Hiryu, Sunk June 5, 1942 in the Battle of Midway
IJS Kaga, Sunk June 5, 1942 in the Battle of Midway
IJS Ryujo, Sunk August 24, 1942, in the Battle of the Eastern Solomon Islands



Hiyru.jpg

Shoho.jpg

zuikaku.jpg

The Japanese would go on to lose another 14 carriers in the war, for a total of 20 sunk. The US would not lose another major carrier, but they would lose another six escort and jeep carriers to the Japanese, three by Kamikaze (one during the battle of Leyte Gulf), one by submarine, and two more during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, one by dive bomber and one by naval gunfire. Altogether, the US loss eleven carriers.

And this was just in the Pacific between the US and Japanese. A total of 31 aircraft carriers sunk in the Pacific between the US and Japan.

The US also lost one escort carrier to the Germans (sub).

Britain lost eight carriers during the war, one in the Pacific to Japan, and seven to the Germans.

Italy also had two incomplete carriers destroyed during the war.

So...in World War II, over the space of six years, a total of 42 aircraft carriers were destroyed. This seems hard to imagine now...but it was a fierce war.
 

ahho

Junior Member
Radar technology really helped the US in the pacific on detecting incoming Japanese Fighter reducing casualty and help US to sink Japanese carrier since Japan carried lacked radar. When I was watching the documentary about how Japan was procuring carrier or getting technical know hows, I am surprised that they did not get a radar. I don't know if it is a technological handicap they have or the technology is too new, so they did not bother with it
 

Lezt

Junior Member
So...in World War II, over the space of six years, a total of 42 aircraft carriers were destroyed. This seems hard to imagine now...but it was a fierce war.

I think, by 1943, the material superiority of the USA had provided a sufficient layered defence around her carriers which rendered them relatively safe from the Japanese, the Japanese on the other hand lost so much material, that their carriers are entirely exposed. With radar, it means the the Americans can picket, detect and wear them down quickly
 
Top