Telemecus -> RE: Weather predictions (6/25/2017 4:26:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Crackaces Ahhhh .. Just from a pure weather standpoint .. there are huge differences in risk between say -20 and -40 .. then the wind of the blizzards .. instant skin freeze of exposed skin with any wind and -40 . That used to be my view - and from a sort of common sense standpoint that should be right. Moreover the German vehicles were built for tolerances well below zero, but not -40. And the Wehrmacht horse train, which was still the main way of transport and supply for the German army, was decimated by the temperatures. So if it was a question of mobility then yes it was worse. But the German army demotorised and stayed stationary for the winter even if it was mild; so from a non-logistical point of view it did not make a lot of difference. But I guess what the report was saying was that the difference between no winter clothing and winter clothing is greater than -20 and -40. With winter clothing you do not have exposed skin. Exposed skin gets damaged even at -20, and being in the field this was constant exposure. Perhaps being a casualty from -40 is worse and quicker than -20, but as far as the German order of battle is concerned it is still one man less. A lot is made of how the Finns were winter weather experts - the reality was most Finnish soldiers were city folk from Helsinki etc. But they had winter equipment. During the winter war the Russians suffered badly from a milder winter because they did not have winter clothing. Again they had thought the war would be over sooner so they would not need it. At least that is the view I have come to from reading various histories. As always though we are one historian away from changing everything again!
|
|
|
|