Patton's Dream scenario (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Jim D Burns -> Patton's Dream scenario (6/29/2009 12:34:24 PM)

Given that the map extends 100 miles west of Berlin, I gotta ask. Is there going to be a Patton's dream scenario included? Would be a nice 'what if' to add to the end of a long, hard fought PBEM game.

Jim



Hard Sarge -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/29/2009 12:43:52 PM)

now that would be interesting, don't know about getting all of the OOB work done



paullus99 -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 2:57:33 PM)

That would be very nice as well. I seem to remember an older board game that played out the end of the Third Reich & there was a scenario for the West to continue on & attack the Soviet Union.

Of course, the biggest problem for the Russians was their scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel in 1945 - I doubt they could have coped with a Western Allied offensive past the first few weeks (not to mention the wholesale destruction of their supply lines by the USAAF).



Hard Sarge -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 5:09:01 PM)

to be honest, I think it would of been the Western Allies who would of been in a for shock

in the long run, I think they could of won, but the first few weeks may of crushed them, they were not used to the size and scale of the battles on the Eastern Front, nor the losses, the English were in worse shape, manpower wise then the Russians were, and the US homefront couldn't of taken the losses from the first set of battles

and don't think the Western Airforce would of just has a milk run where ever they wanted to fly to



paullus99 -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 5:15:00 PM)

We'll probably agree to disagree - but if the Soviets struck first, the home front would have been all for finishing what we started. Of course, Truman would have been under intense pressure to use the A-Bomb on the Russians - and I believe we would have done so with very little hesitation.



GaryChildress -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 5:17:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest, I think it would of been the Western Allies who would of been in a for shock

in the long run, I think they could of won, but the first few weeks may of crushed them, they were not used to the size and scale of the battles on the Eastern Front, nor the losses, the English were in worse shape, manpower wise then the Russians were, and the US homefront couldn't of taken the losses from the first set of battles

and don't think the Western Airforce would of just has a milk run where ever they wanted to fly to



The Soviet army was much better equipped in the tank department than the Western Allies. [X(]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 5:25:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

We'll probably agree to disagree - but if the Soviets struck first, the home front would have been all for finishing what we started. Of course, Truman would have been under intense pressure to use the A-Bomb on the Russians - and I believe we would have done so with very little hesitation.



well, got to admit, that is a interesting idea, seeing it is still a while down the road, and the follow up war in the ETO may of been over before it was ready

plus both sides were already trying to get the other guy to shoot first, so don't think it would of came down to a sneak attack from either side, to get it started

and no, I don't think you really understand what I am saying, the homefront had a fit about 3000 losses in the rapaho river crossing, that failed, even had a Congressial hearing on it after the war, what would they of done with 20-30-40,000 or more losses, in a single battle ?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 5:29:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest, I think it would of been the Western Allies who would of been in a for shock

in the long run, I think they could of won, but the first few weeks may of crushed them, they were not used to the size and scale of the battles on the Eastern Front, nor the losses, the English were in worse shape, manpower wise then the Russians were, and the US homefront couldn't of taken the losses from the first set of battles

and don't think the Western Airforce would of just has a milk run where ever they wanted to fly to



The Soviet army was much better equipped in the tank department than the Western Allies. [X(]


well, of course, but what I meant, is most people think there Airforce was 2nd hand and backward, the front line planes the Russians had were as good as any in the world

but back to the ground, I think the numbers may shock people, how many tank Div's did the Russians have, compared to the US and English, remember, we really didn't have a lot of them



PyleDriver -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 5:31:07 PM)

Yep your right. We had only so much money to spend, airpower, carrier fleets then the atom bomb...hum...



paullus99 -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 6:00:54 PM)

US Artillery was second to none - mostly due to enhanced communications. Late model US & British tanks were just as good as the standard T-34/85 & all of our tanks were equipped with radios.

As far as the war in the air, there might have been parity for a little while, but our ability to go strategic, as opposed to just tactical support would have played havoc with the Soviet supply lines.

Not to say that it wouldn't have been a bar-room brawl, but ultimately, we would have come out on top. We had a fully functioning economy, while the Soviets were running on fumes. As it was, it took until the late 1960's for the Soviet economy to fully recover to pre-WWII levels of productivity.




Mike Parker -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 6:33:22 PM)

I don't think for a moment the Soviets would have pressed on against the Wallies, even Stalin new his people were war weary.  If the Wallies had attacked the Soviets it would have been a horrible decision.  ONLY the use of nuclear weapons would have allowed a Wallies victory imho.  The USSR was strained, but as for putting out war material it was doing fine, look at its production figures for war impliments and I think you would have to agree there was no real danger of them being unable to equip their soldiers.  Strategic bombing could not have been as effective as it had been against the Germans, as the USSR had a VERY powerful airforce, and the distance from Wallies bases to the USSR was much longer.  But the kicker is what an attack by the Wallies would have done to Russian Morale.  Read some of the stories of the common soviet soldier in WWII, give him the motivation of a backstab by the Wallies.. it would have been horrendous.  The USSR was used to taking appalling losses in war, the UK was tapped, and if the US had taken 100,000 casualties taking Berlin I doubt the home front would have been supportive.

Only by using the A-Bombs on the USSR instead of Japan would the Wallies of had a chance...

and last but not least, it would have been a thoroughly despicable act!  Not that such is not common in war



PyleDriver -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 6:41:21 PM)

We would have won, we had candybars...lol...



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 6:49:40 PM)

Of course, if you guys want to, you can try out this kind of variant right now on a global scale in Gary Grigsby's A World Divided. [8D]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 7:04:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

US Artillery was second to none - mostly due to enhanced communications. Late model US & British tanks were just as good as the standard T-34/85 & all of our tanks were equipped with radios.

what dreams are you having ? English Tanks wern't as good as ours were, and most of them were ours, and as they found out later, the T-34/85 was pretty good, not counting the fact that the Russians were already using the JS models, odd, from what I remember, all the Germen tanks had radios too, and they were better tanks then we had

As far as the war in the air, there might have been parity for a little while, but our ability to go strategic, as opposed to just tactical support would have played havoc with the Soviet supply lines.

oh, we could go Strategic, and where were we going to go with them ? the Urals ?, be easier from PTO side of things, in a long drawn out war, yes, I would agree, but again, my point is would we of been able to make it a long war, you have to remember, it was the Russians who bled the Germans white, not the Western Allies

Not to say that it wouldn't have been a bar-room brawl, but ultimately, we would have come out on top. We had a fully functioning economy, while the Soviets were running on fumes. As it was, it took until the late 1960's for the Soviet economy to fully recover to pre-WWII levels of productivity.

and running fumes, they were still making what they needed for the war, I am sure others can bring in the production numbers for 44 and 45 for the Russian side




Jon ? I don't know about you, but the Steppes is one of the last places, I want to be bringing my CV's, what use are CV's in a war vs Russia when the Germans surrender ? the Baltic and the Black Seas would of been controlled by land based Airpower

I will give you we had the better candybar, and more of them (as long as we kept the Russians away from the Swiss)



PyleDriver -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 7:14:20 PM)

Come on Ron, how long do you think Soviet airpower would have held out. We would have spread them out on every front...Plus they lost 20 million people and another 7 before the war...Do you remember how much vital materails we sent them? If Stalin though he had a chance he would have made the move...



Crimguy -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 8:30:32 PM)

I think that, when reviewing air power, one has to look at where the US would be flying from. I have little doubt that the USSR would have swept through Germany at the outset, pushing back the US to at least the Ardennes. If that could be avoided, the Allies could use their resources to not only further build their armor etc., but also tool up the German war-making economy again (what wasn't irreparably destroyed, that is).

It's a fascinating scenario from an intellectual standpoint. It would be bloody . . .



paullus99 -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (6/30/2009 9:25:09 PM)

Lend-Lease was vital, so that 100% of the remaining Soviet industry could be dedicated to building war-fighting equipment. For all intents & purposes, the Soviet Union didn't have a civilian economy. If war broke out, no lend-lease anymore, no trucks to deliver supplies, etc.

As far as tanks, not to say Soviet tanks were overrated, but Pershings were able to handle T34/85s & JSIIs during the Korean war without any problem whatsoever. And before you blame shoddy North Korean training - most of those tank crews were Soviet-trained.

The Germans were constantly outnumbered by Soviet armor across the board - the US easily built as many tanks as the Soviet Union did during the war, if not more. Soviet supply lines would have been extremely vulnerable to not only US tactical air forces, but also strategic ones as well. There are plenty of bridges and other choke points that 8th Air Force would have had a field day hitting from day one.

I doubt the US/Western Allies would have struck first - but there is probably a much greater chance of Stalin (in a moment of less than lucid thinking) trying to make a go of it.

Regardless, the US was in a much better position to fight a global war against the Soviet Union in 1945/1946 than the Soviet Union was.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 12:57:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Lend-Lease was vital, so that 100% of the remaining Soviet industry could be dedicated to building war-fighting equipment. For all intents & purposes, the Soviet Union didn't have a civilian economy. If war broke out, no lend-lease anymore, no trucks to deliver supplies, etc.

As far as tanks, not to say Soviet tanks were overrated, but Pershings were able to handle T34/85s & JSIIs during the Korean war without any problem whatsoever. And before you blame shoddy North Korean training - most of those tank crews were Soviet-trained.

The Germans were constantly outnumbered by Soviet armor across the board - the US easily built as many tanks as the Soviet Union did during the war, if not more. Soviet supply lines would have been extremely vulnerable to not only US tactical air forces, but also strategic ones as well. There are plenty of bridges and other choke points that 8th Air Force would have had a field day hitting from day one.

I doubt the US/Western Allies would have struck first - but there is probably a much greater chance of Stalin (in a moment of less than lucid thinking) trying to make a go of it.

Regardless, the US was in a much better position to fight a global war against the Soviet Union in 1945/1946 than the Soviet Union was.


And don't forget, Poland, Rumania, Hungary etc. all would have had very active and well equipped partisans to throw against the Russians once they realized the allies were going to save them from a future of slavery. I doubt Russia could have possibly sustained an early offensive long enough to drive the allies all the way back to the Ardennes.

The Soviet Union was almost 100% dependant on lend lease for its trucks and the allies knew that. Locomotives were also in critically short supply, so much so that we sent them over 1,000 in 1945. All the allies needed to do was decimate the Soviet supply lines from the air and their offensives would have ground to a halt.

The air war would be sharp and intense early on, but the Russians didn't have a complex air defense network set up like Germany had, due to the fact the Germans never tried a strategic bombing campaign against them. So Russia's industry was wide open, for the first few months, deep allied 4 engine raids would have been virtually unopposed once they penetrated beyond a few hundred kilometers of the front lines.

Both the allies and Russia had cannibalized most of their AAA units, so air strikes that did manage to get through would have seen increased accuracy as well.

The one thing Russia had going for it was its immense land army. If it could manage to keep it supplied, it could probably win the ground war. But keeping it supplied would have been very difficult, especially since it would need to take a few months to recuperate and build up supplies after having depleted stocks in the huge Berlin battles. The opening months air battles would probably tell the tale.

Then there was the threat of allied amphibious landings in the Baltic that could threaten to cutoff the Russian armies in Europe.

But even if Russia was forced out of western Europe initially, the question still remains. Could they then recover enough eventually to be able to launch an offensive back out of Russia a few years later?

Without allied lend lease, Russia had no rubber industry to speak of. So they would have had to devise a supply system that was almost totally dependent on the railroads as they'd never be able to produce enough trucks on their own to feed their massive armies once the allies started targeting their trucks.

Jim



PyleDriver -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 2:28:33 AM)

Don't forget the French, their pop pool was really untouched, and there was alot of trained troops from 1940 that would be willing, as long as they had the weapons. It didn't take long to build a French army, many more could be built. Britian is another story, they were as the Soviets, depleated...



PyleDriver -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 5:26:34 AM)

Ok one last statment, in my view the Americian power was at it's peek. If Patton had his way he would have kicked their %&*# back into Russia where they belong...I trully love the guy, Manstien is a 9 in our game, Patton is a 10 in my book...Oh they, the Soviets, would have never seen the waters of the Rhine...



Hexagon -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 10:12:03 AM)

Well, if red bear attack west before Japan surrender, no A bombs, sorry but west allies dont have any chance because do you see Brits and Yanks suffering all the days an Iwo Jima casualty rates??? remember that in Bulge battle german attack was weak (compared with France40) if soviets attack they smash all the front with tanks and tanks, tanks that west armor can stop because How many Pershings were??? and 76mm-17pounder are inferior to Panther 75mm and soviets has experience... and west allies dont have thes superb StugBug to ambush... and better dont talk about numbers, german has few good tanks in west but now soviets have HUGE numbers of better armor!!! air power... well, soviets dont need protect their homeland (Moscow is so far and do you see Stalin worried for civil situation???) and can send all planes to west, west allied need all they have to mantein the front, is they retire 1 plane they are dead.

paullus99, in Korea only T-34/85/76 where used, China dont use their JSII in battle, JSII is equal to Persing but with better armor and JSIII well, if M-48 with 90mm has problem to kill it with better ammunition...


EDIT: if germans with PanzerFaust and other AT weapons cant stop soviets... bazooka can do it??? i think no, west allies "defensive" AT was based in undergunned AT, TankHunters (with worst armor and more visible than german Stug, Hetzer...) and Air power but hey, soviets have and Air force and can fight with destroy allied air force as 1st mission, defende homeland is seconday.



paullus99 -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 10:43:41 AM)

Well, the Israeli's didn't seem to have any problems taking apart front-line Soviet tanks with "inferior Western tanks." So I judge that as a non-starter in this discussion.

This "huge" land army that you speak of was at the end of a very long & very vulnerable supply line. The transportation system in Eastern Europe was completely decimated by the Soviet advance originally & what was left would be hit from the air (strategically) from day 1. There were also very few, if any, infantry replacements left - Stalin told Zhukov & Koniev not to expect any reinforcements after the beginning of the push across the Oder River.

Although I can't see a scenario where the allies & Soviets go toe-to-toe in May or June 1945, it would have been a bloodbath on both sides - especially on the ground - but in the longer run, the Soviet Union couldn't sustain a war against the Western Allies. Also, if Stalin struck first, I can bet you that there would be some second-guessing in the lower ranks as to the validity of those orders.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 11:54:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
if soviets attack they smash all the front with tanks and tanks, tanks that west armor can stop because How many Pershings were??? and 76mm-17pounder are inferior to Panther 75mm and soviets has experience...



The allies would stop the Soviet tanks the same way they stopped the German ones during the last year or two of the war. Lack of fuel. Far more German tanks were abandoned on the Western front by their crews than were destroyed through use of arms.

Russia was totally dependent on the allies for trucks during the war, they had no industry to speak of that could replace their truck losses. So once the allies shredded those trucks they had on hand, Russia wouldn't be able to deliver fuel to the front lines.

JSIII's become a severe liability when you can't feed them enough fuel to fight with, let alone advance with. Most of the rail network in Europe had been torn up by the retreating Germans, so Russia was almost completely dependent on truck convoys for their fuel.

Then there is the fact Russia had lost about 2,000 of its 6,000 or so tanks in the battles around Berlin, so they weren't nearly as strong as they had been. Add to that about half a million casualties they had just lost, and they weren't in any shape to start a new conflict.

Sure they could and did recover from similarly tough fights, but that takes time. And the more time they gave the allies the worse their supply situation would become, until eventually they'd have to abandon Europe all together in order to consolidate and come up with ways to deal with all their new challenges.

But whatever the outcome would have been, there is no doubt, it's in doubt and strong arguments can be made for both sides.

I think it would make a great what if scenario to play out at the end of a game.

Jim



Helpless -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 1:36:02 PM)

quote:

battles around Berlin, so they weren't nearly as strong as they had been. Add to that about half a million casualties they had just lost


hmm.. [8|]

Soviet Losses in Berlin Strategical Offensive Operation 16.04.1945 - 08.05.1945:

2nd Belorussian Front permanent losses 13070
1st Belorussian Front permanent losses 37610
1st Ukrainian Front permanent losses 27580
Total : 78291 (includes 31 lost in Navy) which is 4.1% of starting capacity
Polish 1st and 2nd Armies lost 2852

Krivosheev "Grif sekretnosti sniat" http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/




Jim D Burns -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 2:34:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
hmm.. [8|]

Soviet Losses in Berlin Strategical Offensive Operation 16.04.1945 - 08.05.1945:

2nd Belorussian Front permanent losses 13070
1st Belorussian Front permanent losses 37610
1st Ukrainian Front permanent losses 27580
Total : 78291 (includes 31 lost in Navy) which is 4.1% of starting capacity
Polish 1st and 2nd Armies lost 2852

Krivosheev "Grif sekretnosti sniat" http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/



I suspect those figures are just the dead. This site lists over 300,000 casualties (70,000 dead), but I've read sources that exceeded 500,000. My guess is it depends on what the source considers as part of the Berlin campaign.

Jim



Helpless -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 2:38:52 PM)

quote:

I suspect those figures are just the dead. This site lists over 300,000 casualties (70,000 dead), but I've read sources that exceeded 500,000. My guess is it depends on what the source considers as part of the Berlin campaign.

Jim


That's official numbers form Central Archive of Ministry of Defense (CAMO). For example, David Glantz is using them in his book.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 2:47:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
That's official numbers form Central Archive of Ministry of Defense (CAMO). For example, David Glantz is using them in his book.


Right but the term permanent losses means they are dead. Casualties as a general term include dead, wounded, captured and missing, which those numbers you posted don't reflect.

Many of the casualties (walking wounded, desterters, ex-prisoners) probably returned within days or weeks, but sorting them out and getting them ready to fight again took time.

Jim



Helpless -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 3:00:04 PM)

quote:

Right but the term permanent losses means they are dead. Casualties as a general term include dead, wounded, captured and missing, which those numbers you posted don't reflect.

Many of the casualties (walking wounded, desterters, ex-prisoners) probably returned within days or weeks, but sorting them out and getting them ready to fight again took time.

Jim


That's right. In your first statement you didn't specify what kind of casualties you mean. I gave you the link which contains all the stats without trailing zeros (can use google to translate).

I just wanted to say that permanent casualties where relatively light and nowhere near half-million. Some newspapers give millions, but it doesn't change the history.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 3:09:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
That's right. In your first statement you didn't specify what kind of casualties you mean. I gave you the link which contains all the stats without trailing zeros (can use google to translate).

I just wanted to say that permanent casualties where relatively light and nowhere near half-million. Some newspapers give millions, but it doesn't change the history.


But that was the case for all the battles in WWII. As an example, Iwo Jima saw over 26,000 US casualties, but only 6,000 - 7,000 of those were dead. That doesn't change the fact that the Marine divisions were shot and wouldn't be in any shape to fight again for months.

The same would apply to most of the Soviet divisions that had just gone through the Berlin meat grinder. It would be months before they were in any shape to fight again.

I also wouldn't say 78,000 dead were light losses. That's about 1 out of every 4 or 5 casualties that ended up dead. Not a great survival rate.

Jim



Helpless -> RE: Patton's Dream scenario (7/1/2009 3:25:52 PM)

quote:

But that was the case for all the battles in WWII. As an example, Iwo Jima saw over 26,000 US casualties, but only 6,000 - 7,000 of those were dead. That doesn't change the fact that the Marine divisions were shot and wouldn't be in any shape to fight again for months.

The same would apply to most of the Soviet divisions that had just gone through the Berlin meat grinder. It would be months before they were in any shape to fight again.

I also wouldn't say 78,000 dead were light losses. That's about 1 out of every 4 or 5 casualties that ended up dead. Not a great survival rate.

Jim


I won't comment your comparison Berlin with Iwo Jima.. [:)]

By the Eastern Front standards 78K losses for such operation should be considered light.

Don't forget, that after the fall of Berlin war was over and Germans stopped their resistance in many places, which otherwise would require additional casualties.

P.S. Sorry, seams that I hijacked your topic. Please keep discussing it. [:)]




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.967773