WWII 1943 Platoon vs. Current 2003 Platoon

[telewinz]

It do get interesting

Who would win in a Russian/American Conflict IMHO it boils down to what people had the most WILL to win. I think the Russians would have pushed the Allies out of Europe long before American technology could have been decisive. Airpower would have been too busy in the air seeking superiority which I feel the Americans would win provided their airfields were not over-run by the russians(and they probably would have) to cause much trouble on the ground. I don't believe that we would have been willing to fly any bomber a couple thousand of miles over hostile territory to nuke Moscow regardless whether we had air superioity or not. The risk of losing the aircraft thru hostile action and providing the Russians with a nuke would be too high. This was a very real concern against Japan, the risk would certainly have been greater against Russia. Again, Russia had proven they were willing to except extremely heavy losses for self defense and political gain. America had not done that since the Civil War. The American people's will to stay the course and fight against the communists in a far off land has been tested before and found wanting, Vietnam. The big question in NATO for decades is/was "How much is America willing to fight/suffer for Europe" there are no large oil fields in western Europe. Americans aren't willing to invest a huge loss of American lives(compared to Russia) for any nation or group of nations unless there is a direct threat to us like Peal Harbor. This isn't a negative against the US or its people, we believe their is more than one way to skin a cat and like Patton said "let the other poor SOB die for his country". Thats why I support a hi-tech, lethal US military now and in the future. I rather put an expensive cruise middle at risk than a fire team.

 

[Med 10]

Gotta get to work see you guys later.

 

[Med 10]

But before I go I might add. This discussion was brought about concerning what would happen If Patton and the Allies " kept on going" so the U.S. would not be fighting a defensive war.

When the Soviets captured the rich oilfields of Romania and surrounding areas they had access to all the oil they would ever need with the measures to tap and refine it for the most part in place. This is probably the thing that hurt Germany the most was losing these oilfields.

one thing: the battle of the bulge. This was a last ditch effort by 400,000 Germans and it had a fair degree of success. Now multiply that ten fold or more and it proves that U.S. ground forces were nothing without Tacair power.

And as the Russians advanced they would be using captured equipment against us.

Later for now.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Bulge: Planes certainly helped "tidy up" the battlefield, and the 106th admittedly folded, but the Allies won it on the ground, with Patton's "left turn" figuring prominently alongside German logistical difficulties. The important lesson here is one the Germans had already learned well: It was utterly hopeless to contemplate fair-weather offensive operations against the west. Vietinghoff and Rommel, to name two, weren't certain that it was possible to conduct even a defense in good weather. If Hartmann's famous postwar quip from a Russian prison is correct, the actual strength in the air was pushing a 10:1 ratio, and that's about where the Luftwaffe went MIA. Even if Hartmann is wrong, the Russians' best was only good enough to secure local superiority against a disinterested opponent whose major efforts disappeared against the west.

Romania: Granted, the conquest was more fatal than the bombing, but the bombing was severe on several occasions. The Soviets are starting with an already damaged infrastructure, no AAA to speak of, and the biggest bomber magnet left in range of BC and 8th and 15th AAFs, so there is no reason to expect this to be any better than the German experience. The genuinely high-octane stuff remains elusive even in a best-case scenario by my best guess. The traffic desert is actually a bigger problem for them, though, since the Germans spent the last year of the war proving that what you produce isn't nearly as important as getting some of it to where it needs to go. The USSBS makes fascinating reading on that last.

Captured equipment: The west has a HUGE advantage in this element, since it also gets operators and what's left of the Ruhr. While Kozhedub spends a few weeks learning to fly the Me-262, and his ground crew learns to rebuild the Jumo 004 every nine hours; Heinz Baer simply repaints his fuselage, and entire German army groups would trade in paybooks and uniforms gladly for the chance to defend what passed (and passes) for civilization in Europe. The only reason I didn't mention captured equipment is that it comes with an overwhelming benefit to the west, leveling out the sole Soviet advantage of manpower, but it's hard to quantify exactly what edge the west gains relative to the more predictable assets. Ignoring the guys we actually stole like von Braun, and the military men from Bix to Rudel to Kesselring, ISTM that Speer would make a LOVELY advisor to a strategic bombing campaign.

Assuming the Anglo-American populations can be duped into such a high-risk/low reward venture in the first place, there's only one way this can go. The victory over Nazi Germany had been bought with Russian blood and American gold. The Yanks had more gold left than the Russians did blood, and hadn't really even tapped their own blood. Trying it again in as little as a couple of years would be one heck of a question, but The Great Patriotic War took all the Russian people had and more. They simply didn't have the ability to survive two homicidal dictators, while rolling over one Great Power only to immediately engage two more. The Anglo-Americans hadn't had any dictators, and were trying to roll over two Great Powers (three, if you're mad enough to count the Italians) to engage only one.

Steve

 

[Tamara]

Stephen Ewing,

All through this, I've been accused of being duped by reading "high school history books", while the other side talks about "well, their tanks had really big guns and thick armor and they were motivated and we were pansies". I'm ever so happy to see someone use the term "traffic desert" in a sentence...

Med 10,

My whole argument is based on quite a few revisionist historical authors...

Probably the most accurate malapropism you've typed yet.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Tamara,

Glad to be of service, ma'am. Technically, after doing it to the Germans first, wouldn't the second one be a traffic dessert, though?

Steve

 

[telewinz]

Stephen

We have a very good test of what might have happened between a conflict with Russia and America after Berlin fell. Its not conclusive but I feel in is a valid indication. KOREA before the chinese entered the fray and before the Inchon Landings. The US had pretty much complete air superiority yet they were unable to prevent the advance of the North Koreans to Pursan. The US had as good or better aircraft than 6 years previous and the North Koreans were armed like the Russians of 1945. For several months US airpower could not stop the invasion, and that is what would have happened in Europe, airpower would have inflicted alot of damage but it would not have been decisive. Several months is all the Russians would have needed to drive the US out of Europe. Sure the air war effort in Korea was smaller, but so was the land mass and the land forces involved.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Korea has several flaws. There were no Mig-15s in WW2 AFAIK, and the USAF and USN are still flying basically the same aircraft at the start. Not exactly a net gain for the U.S., IMO. As stated above, the ComBloc had rebuilt much of their industry and the populace had settled down some by that time. Then there's the little matter of who started Korea, as if the Russians begin 1945 with a sneak attack to mimic the initial success, they'll get NUKED very badly before we're happy. Period. Otherwise, we had an average (non-Marine) response time of an hour for air support due to the USAF flaunting its new independence, and the U.S. experiencing its usual slow start in the middle of being caught off guard, while refraining from engaging in strategic war because we didn't want to annoy the Chinese. Amidst all that, the Koreans gave us the biggest problem with weak allies since the German 6th Army hung out with Romanians twice. The non-Chinese war ended shortly in an absolute rout of the communist army, and even the Chinese involvement started with the 1st MarDiv inflicting 130,000 or so KIA while shepherding 100,000 refugees, and ended in a complete draw on China's doorstep, with the U.S. still refraining from strategic warfare.

Sorry, but I can't see how Korea could possibly support the Russian position.

Steve

 

[mack]

The only possibility of a war between Russia and the US/Britain in May of 1945 - was if Stalin would have been stupid enough to start one - there was no way the US was going to start a war at that time - yes Patton mouthed off about it as he was apt to do - but he was in no position to start one even if he wanted to do so. If he even started to put anything into motion, he would have ended up on the carpet if not court-martialed in a heartbeat. He was kept on a short leash and lost his command shortly after the war's end as it was.

If a war started though, the US in 1945 was not going to do the political thing and fight a war for limited political goals - where they handcuffed the military like they did later, first in Korea and then Vietnam. They would fight for the total defeat of their enemy as they had just done with Germany and Japan. Yes the US was war weary - so was every other country - but the average American at the time was 100 percent behind the troops and that would not change in the short time –( being generous one or at the most two years), that it would take to demolish the Soviet Union. I doubt that the US losses would be much more than were sustained on average throughout most of WWII.

The idea that the US would not use the "bomb" on the Soviet Union at that time is also implausible. The Soviets at that time could not stop a B29 at night - even if the US "lost" a bomb - again highly unlikely given simple safe guards - why should they really worry as the Soviets didn't have the infrastructure in place to create the materials necessary to manufacture their own bombs and by the time they could the war would be over.

Manufacturing capacity is also central - it is awe inspiring to think that the US - produced 40 percent of the munitions in WWII and had 50 percent of the manufacturing capacity - even more so when one realizes that the US was late to the war. What that means is that the US essentially could/did produce more war material than all the other combatants in WWII combined - Russia, Germany, Britain and the Commonwealth, Japan, etc...And as has been pointed out the US had extra capacity that it didn't need to tap.

US manpower was also relatively untapped - compared to any of the other major players.

What I frankly find most puzzling about this thread is not the praise for the Russian soldier of WWII and their obvious capabilities and that of their army - but the evident low regard for the American fighting man and military. I will grant that the Russian soldier was probably used to overcoming tremendous hardships and that they and the Russian people had great heart and fought with amazing resilience against the Nazi war machine.

The Japanese also fought with great heart and determination - in fact their willingness to die fighting and there unwillingness to surrender even when facing certain death - demonstrates of a fanatical devotion to duty unmatched by any other nation in WWII.

Yet, the quality that the American soldier and that the American nation brought to WWII was in the end superior. American strength was not pretty - or especially noble - or especially emblematic of great honor - of great suffering - or a great willingness to die - while those qualities were there they were not in stark relief to other nations - no, it was a desire to live, a sense of individuality, a sense of citizen first and soldier second, a willingness to improvise, an openness to learning from one's mistakes, an attitude of finding what works first and foremost, it was a genius for capitalism that made war a business - and in 1945 no one was better at business, manufacturing, and logistics than the US. A prime example is the ship building industry - how fast did the US learn to build transport/cargo ships - no other nation in the world - certainly not Germany or the Soviets with their central planning could hope to match that production - they could not organize as efficiently, as quickly, and as flexibly as the US. Those same strengths translated to our military.

Could the Soviets have won some battles early on - certainly. Could they have captured most if not all of Germany and maybe even part of France - perhaps. Would they have been able to push the Americans and British off the continent of Europe - extremely unlikely, (remember Italy is part of Europe too how would soviet tactics translate to mountain fighting, also France is more restricted than the Russian steppes and the Americans and British had an intimate knowledge of the French countryside as they had just fought and bled on that land) - unless one has such a low opinion of US/British forces that they really do believe that they were the equivalent of the Italians. However, even given that most unlikely of scenarios - the Soviets would have lost - Air Superiority - bombing of their manufacturing base - bombing and air attacks of supply lines and of front line troops - the atomic bomb - superior manufacturing capacity that could out produce the Soviets in war material at least 3 or 4 to 1 - all lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Soviets could not hope to win a war against the US in May of 1945.

 

[telewinz]

Getting back to the original question of who would win between a 1943 platoon and a 2003 platoon, the history of the last 50 years answers that question. The only generation that has won a major conflict in the last 50 years(1991) is the current 2003 platoon. We left an undefeated enemy in Korea with a TRUCE (The "Greatest Generation" sure had a narrow window of opportunity), IKE "I will go to Korea" he went not to give military advice but to to seek a solution for peace, he was also elected President by a landslide. Vietnam, again we gave up and left behind an undefeated enemy with our "honorable peace" (upper level leadership provided by the "Greatest Generation" for the most part). Persian Gulf War I, the current generation wins, Persian Gulf War II, the current generation will win. Final score and answer to the question of who would win between a '43 and 2003 platoon? 1943 platoon 1 & 2, 2003 platoon 2 & 0. 2003 platoon wins with an undefeated record. The Sherman was still a second rate tank, having the best paint job doesn't make the best tank.

 

[Med 10]

Bravo mack! A very eloquent response indeed.

One of the things I love about playing devils advocate in all this is the wealth of knowledge and info I get from the "opposing" sides; some I knew and some a welcome surprise!

My hat is off to you all as I gracefully bow down to youre excellent arguments. telewinz, this has been fun but I'm ready to move on to another topic. You have lost youre ally and now you must continue the fight alone.{ though I still may throw a jibe or two in for good measure.

It's nice to know of such folks who do not forget the lessons of history as far too many in the world have done.

Oh, and BTW, the 2003 platton would win.


{Tamara, what does malapropism mean?}

 

[Med 10]

telewinz check youre mail.

 

[telewinz]

I have enjoyed the past week greatly, time to move on to another war

 

[Stephen Ewing]

See everybody in the next war.

Steve

 

[mack]

Yes, I obviously enjoyed this thread - so thanks to those who participated and made it a thread focused on information and logically thought out opinion.

Special "tanks" to, Telewinz, Med 10, Stephen Ewing, and Tamara - before I buy my next tank I will be sure to consult with ya-all first.

 

[telewinz]

I have a convertible Sherman with low miles, Turret missing

 

[trapshooter]

I realize I'm joining this thread late. I read the whole thing last night.

Not much to say regarding the platoon vs. platoon thing, except this. It ain't the tool, its the user. Whether or not one would be able to recognize the weakness(es) of the other would be the key.

On the 'tank' argument.

telewinz, you're restrained Patton-bashing is admirable. Unfortunatley, you neither understand his position on the Sherman, or war in general. Tamara alluded to it, but I think you missed her point. It can be summed up in an old saw. "Captains study tactics, Generals study logistics".

Patton did not view the Sherman as a tool for defeating enemy tanks. He saw it (and mech force) as the 'modern' (at the time) equivalent of the horse. He saw these forces as a speed-dependent force whose primary use was to get into the enemies' rear areas and blow stuff up, destroying his LOC, and cutting his support of all kinds. The best use of mechanized force is not to slug it out in static battles against entrenched defenders. That is a job Patton viewed best performed by artillery and air forces. The Sherman was designed and intended to implement this strategy, not to take on Tigers or Panthers, or any other tank, in one-on-one engagements. It was intended to be a medium tank, able to move fast(er), to the point of attack. Which I repeat, was the enemies' rear or flank, not his front. If you do not grasp the importance of this, then of course, you will not understand Patton, or his successes in WWII.

Naturally, the Nazi's, as defenders, had a different view, and thier equipage reflects this, particularly in the later stages of the conflict. After Stalingrad, and Kursk, and Normandy, they were defensive, and without the initiative. In this role, they were masterful tacticians, but without a strategy. So they ultimately lost. The manufacturing capacity of the Allies only made this happen faster, after enabling the Soviets to win the war of attrition in the east. The primary Nazi strategy against the western Allies, lost in 1943, was a submarine blockade of the Atlantic LOC to the western areas. Too bad for Hitler he didn't really grasp the importance of winning this particular battle, and kudos to the Brits at Bletchley Park and the RN for letting us read his Naval mail.

Back to Patton. That particular individual probably studied, learned, and rejected or forgot more, about military history in his life than anyone on this board. He read, and practiced, what he learned, against the best troops the Nazi's had to offer at the time, and before that, against the Kaiser's troops, and the odd Mexican bandit. You need to look much further than the fancy uniforms and ivory-handled pistol, and his practiced 'war-face'.

Remember that Patton, in particular among the Allied Generals, had the least need to prctice his craft as an occupation. To him, it was his destiny, and I'm not talking about the bs re-incarnation baloney from the movie. He understood the concept of duty, and leadership, better than any other Allied General. You can dispute this as much as you like. IMNSHO, you would be wrong. I began my study of Patton, as a man and military officer, at the feet of a very learned and practiced tough-as-nails Marine Colonel, many years ago, after I made a somewhat ignorant and ill-considered disparaging offhand comment about Patton in private conversation with said Colonel. This Colonel commented that ignorance could always be cured, if the ignorant were willing, but only stupidity was an incurable disease, and which was I afflicted with?

 

[telewinz]

Better late then never

What Tank general of any army at any time DIDN'T have Pattons beliefs in the proper use of armor? The idea you quote as Patton's goes back to when the first tanks were used in WWI and were written about by several well known tank experts. It was also the tactic of the horse calvary long before the 19th century. Due to Patton's poor judgement he could either park the Shermans or use them and create alot of un-necessary Allied orphans, which he did. Saying OOPS should not be in a general officer's vocabuary but Patton said it more than once. What allied general (if any) viewed the Sherman in any model as a TOOL to defeat a Tiger or Panther after 43? The only choice the allies had was to do what you cite as an insightful strategy. They tried using the M18 and M36 tank destroyers to do the job the Sherman could not but it failed. I do not bash Patton as I feel he was one of the better allied generals, but only because his enemy regarded him as such, not his PR officer The other use of the tank is to destroy other tanks and after '43 the Sherman was on the losing end by a large margin. Who's is the one person documented to have declined (against the wishes of most other commanders) to introduce the M26 in 43 when it was needed? George Patton! The Allied tanks did so poor against the german armor that th British parliment held secret hearings on the matter. Several US congressmen attempted to do the same in our country but were asked not to because it would harm morale. The standards of a "great" general are quite high don't you think?

 

[Med 10]

Patton. A Guderian or Rommell he wasnt!

 

[Dannyboy]

Check this out! It's for sale!

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/T34/t34.htm

 

[telewinz]

Just emailed UPS for a shipping estimate. For some reason its not on their standard chart.

 

[Dannyboy]

Hope I don't get fired for this but...

you don't need no stinking UPS!

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/SHIPPINGTRANSPORT/shipping.htm

 

[Med 10]

They would be nice to have, but what would you do with one?

 

[trapshooter]

Well, I'm reluctant, but here goes:

The idea you quote as Patton's

Where exactly did I say that?

The only choice the allies had was to do what you cite as an insightful strategy.

No, they could have re-tooled production to build Panther and Tiger clones, such as the M26, and then reinstituted trench warfare, sometime in 1945, when they had enough "suitable' tanks to take on the German ones that they wanted to emulate. How long would the invasion of occupied France have been delayed to do this? What would the Germans have been doing in the meantime? Sounds like Montgomery would have loved it.

I do not bash Patton as I feel he was one of the better allied generals, but only because his enemy regarded him as such, not his PR officer

Oh, really? Could have fooled me. In any case Patton had no need for a PR guy. He took care of that all by himself.

Who's is the one person documented to have declined (against the wishes of most other commanders) to introduce the M26 in 43 when it was needed?

Yep. GP called up Marshall and had the plan killed. Right. Not that I say he was for the M26, quite the opposite. For reasons
already made abundantly clear, IMO. Patton died shortly after the war. I'll paraphrase the old saw about history being written by the victors. It is also written by those who live long enough to get the last word in..

The Allied tanks did so poor against the german armor

Yep again. That's why we lost, certainly. And, the Soviets were smarter than us. They knew how to kick Nazi a$$. Just keep letting the Nazi's kill your troops until the pile gets so high that they can't see to shoot at any more. Not efficient, but effective. It also requires a willingness on the part of some other troops to shoot the ones who really don't want to play that game. That's only a small drawback, I guess.


And, finally,

Patton. A Guderian or Rommell he wasnt!

And lucky for us, too. Or possibly the Soviets. Probably both.

Guys, this is a pointless game. Patton was not a CYA type guy. Outside of the wimp-slapping incident in Sicily, he had little to apologize for. He kept countless enemy troops from booting Monty and the Brits back across the channel (again), led the fastest advance in military history, and saved Monty (again) by taking the Geman flank in the relief of Bastogne. Forget Avranches and the bocage. And El Alamein (who was among those approaching Rommel from Rommel's rear?). And Sicily. A couple more like him, and we would have lost the war, right?

In actual fact, given the proper supply, he had, in his own estimation two, possibly three, chances to be in Berlin before 1945. Many eminently qualified observers (Liddell-Hart, for one)have agreed with him in at least one or more of those estimations. Each time, he was stopped for 'political' reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with strategy from a war-winning standpoint. Who exactly would be responsible for the additional deaths resulting from those decisions? Patton? BS.
You seem to have been listening to Andy Rooney too much, as well.

Think about this. Was, or was not, Patton correct in defining our future threat picture? Maybe it didn't take a genius, but at least he had the stones to say it out loud. You also have to remember that, from the early 1920's to the late '30's, Patton was out of the loop regarding mechanized force development, tactics, and strategy. He went into WWII with far less practice than his contemporaries at 'modern' war. He is, still, one of the most under-estimated, under-appreciated Generals of the war. A victim of his own hubris, if you can believe it.

I'm done with this. I refuse to go to my library and start digging out quotes with page references, and dates. Have at me if you like. This has little to do with 'guns', except peripherally, in any case. Although I could cover things by discussing Patton's skill with handguns, which was not small.

 

[telewinz]

Here Goes...

Trench warfare and the like wasn't a viable option, I am just pointing out that Patton reduced his options by his decision not to introduce the much better M26. What commander in his right mind refuses his troops better equipment? They could have landed at Normandy with the M26, I wonder how much the war would have been shortened if they had? Marshall, Ike. and Bradley permitted Patton to make the decision, he was the field commander on the spot and Patton could have agreed with the other commanders but chose not too.

Its a matter of record that Patton like Montgomery sought the headlines and this "affected" their judgement at times. Study your history (and not the movie) and you will fine that in fact Patton did not advance farther in France then any other Allied commander, Hodges did but unlike Patton was more of a quiet man and didn't seek the limelight. By the way, their were other army commanders in Europe, how many can you name without hitting the books? PR works.

Again Patton was not the only Army commander who felt with the proper supplies and support (majority of the allied effort)he could have singlehandily reached Berlin and ended the war(he & Monty were the most vocal). The decision was made to advance on a broad front instead of a narrow front. Had Patton been permitted to send a spearhead towards Berlin there is a good chance he would have been sealed off and been defeated. Remember what happened to Monty's plan (movie, Bridge too Far) he was defeated by vastly understrength German divisions (one devision only had 2 operational tanks!) that were being rested and rebuilt after Normandy. Patton would have needed the majority of the supplies, Hodges and Simpson probably could not have saved his butt because they didn't have the gasoline. Ike made the right military and political decision, we had no need to gamble in 1944, (The germans did) the end of the war was already in sight.

You say Patton slapped a whimp, I say Patton slapped a sick combat veteran (temp 102 degrees) that was admitted for medical attention by an MD. The case was investigated and Patton was found to have been in error. If that happened today, Patton would have been courts martialed and dismissed from the service in disgrace. Our "best" commander came real close to being fired, Marshall permitted IKE to make the final decision.

About Patton's effort to relieve Bastogne, what allied general given the same number of vehicles could not have done the same thing? What (useful) unique skill did Patton bring to bear and what army in the past had his mobility? Hodges or Simpson would have done the same thing if they had been on the right flank, its a no-brainer.

The Russians certainly weren't smarter than us, there was just more of them and they either followed orders or were shot, from privates on up the food chain. How many American generals were shot for their poor performance? I rest my case. Both Germany and Russia were much more demanding on their troops than the US or Britain were permitted. Being shot for failure can be a great motivator!

How many battles did the Germans lose in which the forces were anywhere near equal? They were overwhelmed, not out fought or out generaled.