Patton's take on WWII

[JakeStarkey]

Since we're speculating...

When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fired at a Russian at over 700 yard.

The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets

The US and Brits would have owned the skies.

We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.

Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.

Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.

The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours. The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational. These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined. The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.

The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us. However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians. They would have been unable to move anything during the day. Period. During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.

Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air. Just like the Germans did to them during the war. Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.

The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies. That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood. We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.

You guys obviously never served. I am not taunting, just pointing out a fact. None of what you are suggesting would have happened. What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead. What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."

 

[elvis]

What percentage of the nazis would we have had? Even if every one of them agreed with the mission, how many were in soviet hands?

 

[elvis]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

what stopped Stalin from doing that anyway? there were those in soviet command who envisioned marching into paris.

 

[Trajan]

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

German deaths by front

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them. Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous. That's why no universities will use wiki as a source. It is simply not credible.

You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights

lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer, c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?


a, or b or c or ?.

 

[rightwinger]

The Soviets were principally responsible for defeating Germany. They had turned the tide before the Allies set foot in Europe. Did we help? Of course we did
Were we equal partners? No we were not

 

[Trajan]

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

uh huh..... what a crock.


American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing Germany to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..

Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand

killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.

You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.

I will make the point again, and provide an example.

Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.

When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....

Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.

Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell, only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .

Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions that wound up being sent to West and to Italy in 43 never would have went as well.



on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....

 

[westwall]

Since we're speculating...

When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fired at a Russian at over 700 yard.

The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets

The US and Brits would have owned the skies.

We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.

Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.

Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.

The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours. The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational. These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined. The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.

The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us. However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians. They would have been unable to move anything during the day. Period. During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.

Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air. Just like the Germans did to them during the war. Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.

The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies. That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood. We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.

You guys obviously never served. I am taunting, just point out a fact. None of what you are suggesting would have happened. What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead. What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."

You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I. I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.

 

[elvis]

The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours. The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational. These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined. The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.

The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us. However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians. They would have been unable to move anything during the day. Period. During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.

Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air. Just like the Germans did to them during the war. Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.

The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies. That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood. We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.

You guys obviously never served. I am taunting, just point out a fact. None of what you are suggesting would have happened. What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead. What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."

You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I. I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.

Hmm.. I was assuming he forgot a the "not" before "taunting".

 

[westwall]

What percentage of the nazis would we have had? Even if every one of them agreed with the mission, how many were in soviet hands?

We would have had around a million. Of that total probably 200,000 would be considered reliable good troops. And of that probably around 40,000 would be considered elite troops, like the fallschirmjaeger and the 5th , 9th and 10th SS and possibly (depending on how well we were able to rebuild them after the mauling we gave them) the 2nd SS Panzer divisions.

 

[westwall]

You guys obviously never served. I am taunting, just point out a fact. None of what you are suggesting would have happened. What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead. What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."

You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I. I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.

Hmm.. I was assuming he forgot a the "not" before "taunting".

Ahh yes I can see that too, sorry Jake!

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

what stopped Stalin from doing that anyway? there were those in soviet command who envisioned marching into paris.

The Soviets were interested in consolidating their gains in eastern Europe. Soviet communism was motivated by (1) imperialism and (2) protection of very vulnerable borders. I imagine that they were more interested in 1945 in #2, but if the Americans came, the bad guys would have made lemonade out of lemons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I. I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.

Hmm.. I was assuming he forgot a the "not" before "taunting".

Ahh yes I can see that too, sorry Jake!

You guys are right. The fault was mine. I have corrected it above in bolding. My apologies.

 

[Trajan]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.


In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....


In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.

uhm by the end of may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.


In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....


In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.

uhm by the end of may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.

Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched. Really hard.

 

[elvis]

We would not have had the element of "surprise" that hitler had.

 

[Trajan]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.


In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....


In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.

uhm by the end of may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.

Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched. Really hard.

please explain my fallacies.

and think on that manpower blurb.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them. Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous. That's why no universities will use wiki as a source. It is simply not credible.

You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights

lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer, c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?


a, or b or c or ?.

YES TO "a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"

YES TO b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,

YES TO c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?

 

[Trajan]

You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights

lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer, c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?


a, or b or c or ?.

YES TO "a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"

YES TO b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,

whatever.

this question was not for you.

YES TO c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.


In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....


In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.

uhm by the end of may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.

Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched. Really hard.

please explain my fallacies.

and think on that manpower blurb.....

No manpower "blurb" existed in fact. Go back and study the relative strengths of the various coalition members in May 1945.

"the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one...." Patton then would have had the same problem going east if it were a problem as the Russkies would going west.

"the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies": think it through ~ no strategic air capability was necessary (90% of the production was done in the U.S.: the Soviets couldn't have reached the U.S. even if they had B-29 bombers and imagine the logistical problems for the U.S.)

"Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken" ummm. . . more than a 100000 dead Japanese, more than a 100000 dead Okinawan citizens, and more than a 100000 American casualties. No reason existed to think it was going to be anything but harder.

No one here is more patriotic than I, having served faithfully and honorably. The debate here is not about patriotism but rather about realistic expectations.

 

[rightwinger]

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first? We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later