RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/13/2011 12:46:30 AM

Mentor

Posts: 51
Joined: 12/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

yes true, to bad the German MG-43 which the russians copied and called the AK-47

lolwut?

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 31

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/13/2011 1:28:34 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

I assume Pelton talks about the Sturmgewehr 44 AKA MP 43/44. AK-47 was not a copy but it used some design elements.

(in reply to Mentor)

Post #: 32

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/13/2011 1:38:06 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle. Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Yeah, the Russians copied everything from the Germans. Like how the T-34 was designed to take on the Panther.... Oh, wait.

Lucky for us, they didn't copy how the Germans lost two world wars.....

The Cold War is long over. Some don't want to move on.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 12/13/2011 1:39:45 AM >

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 33

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/13/2011 8:19:34 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

I assume Pelton talks about the Sturmgewehr 44 AKA MP 43/44. AK-47 was not a copy but it used some design elements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle. Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Yeah, the Russians copied everything from the Germans. Like how the T-34 was designed to take on the Panther.... Oh, wait.

Lucky for us, they didn't copy how the Germans lost two world wars.....

The Cold War is long over. Some don't want to move on.

Yep... the AK-47 only externally resembles the German "Sturmgewehr 44" - the internals are different (and are best of everything they could get their hand on)...

Is this copy & paste?

IMHO not because that's the way best designs are made (you don't "reinvent the wheel" - you put together in inventive fashion the product that was never before combined in such manner)!

BTW, let us not forget that Soviets were very very very good weapon designers - they had most excellent designs in almost every field of weaponry and / or weapon system in WWII!

Last but not least, the T-44 tank (although never actually used in combat but built in at least 1000 items by the end of WWII) was something that wasn't matched by any side in WWII - it was so advanced and so armored / lethal that it was used until our day (as T-54/T-55)!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 34

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/13/2011 12:26:20 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Fact #1 German population 85 million.
Fact #2 Russian population 170 million.
fact #3 ratio 2 to 1
Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44
Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44
Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast.
Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front.

Sorry to say but your facts are wrong I already answered you in other thread why they are wrong (with sources) but here is short summary:

Germany lost 4 million as KIA at eastern front.

Soviet lost 6.8 million as KIA.

Rest of Soviet losses are not calculated in killed in action becouse they were unarmed Soviet prisoners killed in German POW camps they did not die in combat. How they died while in captivity had nothing to do with combat or military skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Casualties

If you reduce effect of suprice actual combat was pretty even and casulties too there were numerous battles at eastern front were Germany lost more men than Soviets.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 35

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/13/2011 4:07:30 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

I have to wonder what the point of this thread is anyway?

The one who wins the war of attrition is the one who can afford to fight it.

And the Axis couldn't afford it.

Any more than Pyrrhus of Epirus could.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 36

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/14/2011 12:28:47 AM

bigbaba

Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline

the main problem of germans were hitlers strategic mistakes.

just look at the numbers of the sowiet offensive actions in 44-45. the red army had most of the time only a 2:1 superiority in men. the wehrmacht could handle that BUT just look at this example:

mid 44 most of the mighty german panzerwaffe was in ukraine. why? because hitler expected the major sowiet attack there although his intel said something different. the heeresgruppe mitte was weak compared with the heeresgruppe nordukraine.

the sowiets attacked first against the weak HGM and then when model was transfering troops from HG N ukraine to the middle they attacked in ukraine. most of the best german divisions were on the way from one front to other one and missed both battles.

the numbers were n.p for the wehrmacht. we can be glad that hitler was such a idiot in his decisions.

< Message edited by bigbaba -- 12/14/2011 12:32:56 AM >

(in reply to Mike13z50)

Post #: 37

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/14/2011 12:36:23 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Bigbaba, you realize that what happened in 44 was a result of a massive and highly successful maskirovka operation?

Everyone was taken in by it, not just Hitler, and including the much ballyhoed Richard Gehlen, who swallowed this deception hook, line and sinker. They thought the Soviets were going south first and made their dispositions accordingly, because the Soviets created the impression that was going to happen.

All this is just another way of saying: the Soviets did not rely on numbers alone. By 1944 they had mastered the ability of generating operational and strategic surprise and could create local superiority as needed.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/14/2011 12:37:16 AM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to bigbaba)

Post #: 38

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/14/2011 1:04:11 AM

bigbaba

Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline

thats all right. the sowiets were masters of concentration of forces ina tiny 5-6 km wide breakthrough point and also in hiding the troop concentration. i read that stalin was fanatic to know how many tanks, men and artillery were concentrated per front km.

one point i must correct a little bit. thats true that the "abteilung fremde heere ost" (gehlen), the OKW, OKH and hitler were thinking that the russians will attack in urkaine (thanks to the operation maskirovka) but the front commanders of the HGM reported from juni 10th until the beginning of the offensive that they expect a attack in their sector.

good for the sowiets and us that the german high command didnt pay any attention to their reports.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 39

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/14/2011 1:12:19 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Yes, the local unit commanders in AGC knew something was up. But they couldn't bust through the preconceived notions of the high command, and their own AG commander Busch didn't really press the case very hard.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to bigbaba)

Post #: 40

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/14/2011 8:01:46 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Pelton, why do you cut off your sample population/casualty at '44? If you want to exclude the end because of excessive casualties for the Axis, you should exclude the Barbarossa period as 'excessive' for the Soviets, yes? The Axis lost on the order of 5 million on the Eastern front. I would take POW deaths as valid for your arguement, as they are losses, but if you are going to quote just German losses you have to exclude Soviets killed by Axis minor allies. But it is simplistic to make that argument anyway. The question of 'winning' is, which side could sustain that level of operations? The Axis clearly could not, the soviets clearly could (at least to a point in time beyond which the axis could).

Every single time you try to use statistics you do so in a way which undermines your argument. I mean, you argue that the Germans were 'winning' the war of attrition. How could you possibly reconcile that position with what ACTUALLY happened? It makes no sense. I don't think you are a troll, I think you have sort of good intentions, and you clearly have moderate intelligence, but you are so desperate to prove the superiority of the German army that you cannot seem to think clearly about this. Start from the very very basic level, the Soviets WON. then build an understanding of the conflict from there.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 41

RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? - 12/14/2011 8:09:52 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

What's the prize for winning the war of attrition when the enemy overruns your country?

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 42

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]