Re: Many things

--- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
...
> > 9) WW2: John, hate to break it to you buddy, 
> > but the Germans were going down in any event. 
> 
> And would the Russians have won with the Luftwaffe
> actually involved in the campaign?  Probably.  But
> not definitely.
-------
A 233 percent increase in the number of available
aircraft plus the use of first rate German planes
would have had a major impact on the Russian front.
The end result would have been a 'truce' until
one side was ready to try again.

> > Yanks had the bomb (sort of). But in-theatre, 
> > the T-34s and the Russian Air Force (often 
> 
> T-34 has got to be the most overrated tank in
> history.
>  Sure it was nice, but practically every tank in the
> US front line units was a 76-armed varient.  And
> nearly every time the 76-armed M-4 met a T-34 the
> latter came out the looser.
------
In the armored divisions the 76 could be considered
'mostly' standard issue.   The Russians had moved 
on to the T34-85 by the time the 76 armed Sherman was
available in any quanity, I am trying to ignore
the JS-1,-2,-3 when I say that.

> The USAF was designed to destroy the Luftwaffe and
they did so.
-------
I will grant that this statement is true.
Not stated is the fact the Germans were required to
play the game by U.S. rules, I.E. high altitude
combat.   Until quite late in the war the Germans 
could not match the U.S. performance at 20 thousand
plus feet.

>  Nearly 70%, IIRC, of the 1944 Luftwaffe was
> deployed against the USAF/RAF strategic bombing
campaign.  If they had been present the Red Air Force
would have been meaningless.  
-------
Granted. 

>The Red Air Force was designed to provide close air
>support and not much more.
>(Moved text)> The Red Air Force would have been eaten
for lunch by the USAF.	Sorry, but that's the way it
is. 
-------
Agree with the close support.	You need to consider
the USAAF was at that time a high altitude force,
having to play the game at low altitude by the 
Russian rules would have caused excessive losses
(Not to mention the damage that the Russian 
close support would have caused to American 
units that lacked proper/effective AA.)

> Besides, in Korea the Russians did not show terribly
> well, and that was flying far superior aircraft to
> the 'Mericans. 
-------
The Mig-15 has two advantages, firepower and 
height, the F-86 has maneuverability.
The Chinese and Koreans tried to play the 
maneuverability game, they lost,

> > savaged the US forces if it had ever come to it, 
> > and the battle hardened soldiers who'd fought 
> > their way to the Reich itself could have pushed 
> > the US Army into the sea without the bomb. 
> 
> Or the war-weary soldiers who'd just barely trudged
> the whole way would have refused to fight one more
> stupid war against their recent allies and done a
> 1917 on their high command.
-------
To Tomb,
After the initial savage losses against the Red Air
Force the allies would have made good the losses
more quickly than the Russians.   The Russian army
seldon was able to mount an advance that ran farther
that a tank of gas for a tank, most advances were
visual, I.E. Take your unit an capture that hill,
wait for further orders.
		      
To John,
All units were rated politically, with the number
of party members largely determining the rating,
read that as political officers if you wish.
The NKVD, the Russian SS, had a large number of 
field divisions, these were not only elite units
but could be used to prevent/eliminate loyalty
problems in the army.	Remember that the party
had used this type of problem to come to power!

Bye for now,
John L.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup