Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Here we have a guy who's never frozen his ass off at the bottom of a valley with no resupply... who has no idea what it's like to march in formation at night so dark that you can't see the guy barely sixty centimeters in front of you, has no idea of the actual amount of logistical support that goes into setting off on an op, has no idea how how much of a toll just simply marching from one objective to another takes... telling us what is militarily viable and what is not.
I don't understand what part of my argument doesn't make sense.
Every war is different, every war is the same. They all have something in common.
Even in a place as small as Korea you will have supply problems when winter sets in or when you get torrential rainfall. In a place as big as Russia... don't even get me started.
Things may look nice and neat on your copy of The Operational Art of War but where the rubber meets the road, it is a nightmare.

Hello.

It was not my intention to appear rude and I do respect your own operational experience. BTW, I'm not sure how you can be so sure that I haven't done the things you mention above. However, you are generalizing in a big way which makes having a proper discussion all but impossible. The Eastern Front is a huge subject and the vast majority of people know very little about it. The stuff they do know about is so covered in outdated data and misinformation as to make it useless. For example, that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war in the East - it wasn't. To have a useful discussion about this subject requires a certain level of knowledge that frankly most people do not have.

I'm pretty sure that either you haven't done it, or if you have, you've certainly not done enough of it to remember any of it.
Either way, you sure as heck sound like someone who's never done it.
The nitty gritty details don't always matter so much. Like I said, the vast distances, the poor roads, the poor weather... it's a nightmare. And we're not even considering the Western Front which was going to open up as a matter of when not if.
If the Germans chose to take another course of action, the Russians wouldn't have stood by and let it happen that way as they merrily continued to do what they would have done "historically."
It's like the "Could we have won in Vietnam" debates. No probably not.
Could we have kicked the Chinese out of Korea. No probably not.
Could Hitler have won World War II? He didn't have a chance in hell.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'm pretty sure that either you haven't done it, or if you have, you've certainly not done enough of it to remember any of it.
Either way, you sure as heck sound like someone who's never done it.
The nitty gritty details don't always matter so much. Like I said, the vast distances, the poor roads, the poor weather... it's a nightmare. And we're not even considering the Western Front which was going to open up as a matter of when not if.
If the Germans chose to take another course of action, the Russians wouldn't have stood by and let it happen that way as they merrily continued to do what they would have done "historically."
It's like the "Could we have won in Vietnam" debates. No probably not.
Could we have kicked the Chinese out of Korea. No probably not.
Could Hitler have won World War II? He didn't have a chance in hell.

I'm not sure how you can ascertain the level of my military experience from what I've posted on an anonymous forum. But it really doesn't matter anyway and it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, unless I've had experience of planning the operational strategy for 4 million plus soldiers. I'm pretty sure no-one on this forum has anything like that level of experience so it's really a moot point.

As I've said before it is pointless debating this with you as you do not know the subject of the Eastern Front in WW2 well enough to be able to respond in a suitable manner. All you are doing is coming out with cliche after cliche. If you are prepared to dispute the points I'm trying to make then we can continue. But you won't, because you lack the knowledge of the subject matter to do so. All you do is spout generalizations and cliches. You do not realize how perilously close Hitler was to knocking the Russians out of the war in 1941. I wouldn't even worry about the Western Front because the war in Europe was won on the Eastern Front. Defeat for Germany was already a foregone conclusion by the time D-Day took place.

The last thing I'll say on the matter is this. The Germans were caught in 2 minds in July 1941. They either had to choose option a) or option b). Instead they tried to do both options at once and that is why the war for Germany was lost, not at Stalingrad or Kursk, but in 1941. But the war was definitely winnable for Hitler. That's why it was so frightening.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

But the war was definitely winnable for Hitler.

Only if Germany did the same total mobilization as USSR did, and already in 1941. But Germans wouldn't appreciate that.

You are quite correct Supostat. The trouble with this whole debate is that it has been hijacked by dreamers, from "Why DID Germany lose WW II" to "They could have won IF". People are completely bypassing the facts to dream about "IF". Adolf could have crapped cinder blocks "IF" he had the right shaped fundamental orifice, but he didn't.

At the end of the day the blame lies with the man at the top. "Sh!t runs downhill, but responsibility goes t'other way" Yeah,... I know Doppleganger, it's another cliche, but it is never the less true.

Doppleganger, then let it be known where you served and when like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Doppleganger, then let it be known where you served and when like the rest of us.

Why is that of importance when discussing WW2 scenarios?

I seriously doubt it is possible to draw too many comparisons between modern experience and the operational environment of the Eastern front as I don't believe that magnitude of combat or ferocity will ever bee seen again.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Why is that of importance when discussing WW2 scenarios?

I seriously doubt it is possible to draw too many comparisons between modern experience and the operational environment of the Eastern front as I don't believe that magnitude of combat or ferocity will ever bee seen again.

I suspect that Redneck is trying to ascertain Doppelganger's practical experience. It is well known among service personel that what actually happens on the ground and what gets written into books is usually vastly different. This is most noticeable in "historical" accounts and less so in biographical works.

It's the old comparison between the practical and the theoretical, and although it is not a complete gauge of knowledge, it certainly can have a great bearing on one's acceptance of information.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Why is that of importance when discussing WW2 scenarios?

I seriously doubt it is possible to draw too many comparisons between modern experience and the operational environment of the Eastern front as I don't believe that magnitude of combat or ferocity will ever bee seen again.

Exactly. I doubt there is anyone on this board who has served at General Staff level or equivalent even in the modern day, never mind in WW2. Therefore, any experience at the tactical level is not really relevant or applicable to a discussion about grand strategy.

@ Supostat. Your viewpoint regarding mobilization is a little too simplistic. Again it wasn't a lack of resources that was the problem, it was lack of an adequate logistical infrastructure.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I suspect that Redneck is trying to ascertain Doppelganger's practical experience. It is well known among service personel that what actually happens on the ground and what gets written into books is usually vastly different. This is most noticeable in "historical" accounts and less so in biographical works.

It's the old comparison between the practical and the theoretical, and although it is not a complete gauge of knowledge, it certainly can have a great bearing on one's acceptance of information.

I have a fair understanding of what Redneck is trying to achieve however in this case we are discussing simplistic hypotheticals as in reality Germany lost WW2 for literally thousands of reasons stretching all the way back to Varus and his legions and I sincerely doubt that modern squad level experience really covers much more than a few of those reasons.