Can an outnumbered air force be dangerous?

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

shrimpman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 13:40
  • Location: Dublin

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 14:19

Sorry for off-topic and for having strayed from aviation discussion, that was my fault, but I cannot leave that unanswered.
Famous and respected historian David Glantz about Rzhev-Vyazma Operation (codename Operation Mars):
“… in terms of scale, scope, strategic intent and consequences, Operation Mars was analogous to the Operation Overlord (Normandy landings).”
Prof Chris Bellamy in “Absolute War”:
“The seven Russian (sic!) Armies committed to Operation Mars numbered 667,000 men and more than 1900 tanks, over one-third of the forces available to the Kalinin and Western Fronts and Moscow defence zone. German sources estimate that the Russians lost about 200,000 people, 100,000 of them dead. Russian tank losses were huge – at least 1600 out of 1900 committed to the operation initially. That was more than the total number of tanks – 1400 – committed by Vasilevsky for Operation Uranus (counterattack at Stalingrad). […] For obvious reasons Zhukov devotes little space to Mars in his memoirs…”
You have said Mr Glantz had no facts to support his views. Well, let’s check the figures ourselves:
Forces available for Mars: 0.7 million men, 12,000 guns, 1900 tanks and 1100 aircraft
Forces available for Uranus: 1 million men, 15,000 guns, 1400 tanks and 900 aircraft
Well, what a diversion!  That’s an old trick of manipulation. If they beat us, we will say it was just a feint attack, if we beat them, we will say it was a strategic offensive. Can’t remember who said that, but some famous airman have once replied to a journalist question about the difference between a tactical and strategic bombing that a tactical bombing is when they hit us and strategic bombing is when we hit them.
Sorry to say that, Sergei, but Kremlin propaganda has lied through their teeth for nearly 100 years without a single pause to catch a breath. Don’t be surprised no one believes a word they say.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 17:36

shrimpman not ascribe to me words I never said.
I don't said " Mr Glantz had no facts" i asked question If you do not see the difference I feel sorry for you.

With regard to the above experts I repeat once again, not all experts agree with the statement Mr Glantz
They are also agents of the Kremlin , or succumb to propaganda?

Very funny "nearly 100 years"- count from what period of time ? 1917 - at present? but the Soviet Union does not exist Since 1991 .
or are you talking about that to the date of "Mars" operation ? 1942- 100 = 1842 but Soviet Union does not born yet .

Tell me whom I should believe more German General ? or American colonel ?

"In early August, there was a very severe situation [in the Rzhev-Sychevsky direction]: Russian nearly broke through the front. The breakthrough was prevented only by the fact that three armored infantry divisions and a few that are already preparing for the transfer of the Southern Front, were arrested and brought first to locate the break, and then to counter-attack. Tactical success was on the side of the Germans. But Russian, pinning down such a large number of German troops, brought this great benefit to its main front"

"Glantz has also, however, met with some criticism for his stylistic choices, such as inventing specific thoughts and feelings of historical figures without reference to documented sources."
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 17:45

Offline

shrimpman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 13:40
  • Location: Dublin

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 18:00

Maybe I have misunderstood you, but I had an impression you have said Prof. Glantz had no facts to support him. If that’s not what you meant, I apologise. When you do undermine his authority, I would appreciate if you provided any information on which you base your statement.
For 100 years I mean since 1917. Soviet Union may be gone, but don’t fool me by pretending you don’t see Russian Federation as another incarnation of the former USSR with a president in place of a commissar. The same people that ruled then, rule now.
In the years that followed Operation Mars Soviet historians did their best to erase that offensive from the history book altogether and even now parts of it are still censored. If, as you say, Mars have succeeded with its main objective (pinning down German forces) why do Soviets (and now Russians) tried so hard to keep it secret? Haven’t they succeeded after all.
I know little about the general you quote, but when he says three infantry divisions would have made much difference during the Stalingrad counteroffensive, where millions of troops were involved, I doubt his sound judgement.
And lastly, when you ask if I would rather listen to a Nazi general or an American colonel, the choice is very simple for me – even generals had access only to the information they were allowed to get in the III Reich. Besides, after the war they knew how to lie and manipulate in order to whitewash their crimes. Sorry, but the words of German general staff do not convince me.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 18:22

"tried so hard to keep it secret?"

Did they tried? oh really.


But the words of American colonel staff do not convince me.

"but when he says three infantry divisions"
" armored infantry divisions" not just " infantry"
"In addition, the subordinate headquarters of the 9th Army were two motorized divisions (14th and "Greater Germany"), 1st and 9th Panzer Division, a tank battalion of the 11th Armored Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. At the base of the protrusion has reserves of Army Group "Center" - the 12th, 19th and 20th Panzer Division, which in an emergency could be deployed quickly enough to the threat"
Offline

shrimpman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 13:40
  • Location: Dublin

Unread post06 Jan 2015, 23:24

sergei wrote:"tried so hard to keep it secret?"

Did they tried? oh really.


Show me a Soviet source from the 40's or 50's that would even mention Operation Mars. It was all but wiped off record. My original point was that Mars was a major military offensive, just as big as Uranus, but because it was an utter failure, Soviet authorities decided to lie about it and they never had the guts to admit it, just as in the other huge lies I have mentioned before. Just check out Bekaa Valley 44:0 wipeout. Russian "sources" claim scores of Israeli planes were shot down and the whole battle was the great triumph of the MiGs. There was another famous quote, I believe it was Stalin's: "the more outrageous the lie, the easier people will believe it".

But the words of American colonel staff do not convince me.


no idea what's an American colonel staff. Only one historians I have mentioned is American, but he never made a colonel as far as I know. The other one is a British gentleman that I have had pleasure of corresponding with and believe me, his knowledge of the subject is nothing but stunning.

"but when he says three infantry divisions"
" armored infantry divisions" not just " infantry"
"In addition, the subordinate headquarters of the 9th Army were two motorized divisions (14th and "Greater Germany"), 1st and 9th Panzer Division, a tank battalion of the 11th Armored Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. At the base of the protrusion has reserves of Army Group "Center" - the 12th, 19th and 20th Panzer Division, which in an emergency could be deployed quickly enough to the threat"

Units you mention belonged to Army Group Centre. I don't know how far did you dig into Great Patriotic War, but I think you are making a mistake if you think von Kluge would lend his best troops to von Weichs, no matter the circumstances. Remember that von Kluge was the guy who went out of his way to refuse support for von Weich's 2nd Army during the attack on Moscow in 1941. Those two loathed each other.
I think we've gone too badly off-topic here. I don't convince you, you don't convince me. You have got our own views and I respect that. I won't be posting anymore on the subject as I think we've strayed too far away from the original topic.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post07 Jan 2015, 06:59

"Bekaa Valley "
Syrian Air Force lost more than 80 not 44 but the study of these losses says nothing about the superiority of US technology vs modern aircraft of the USSR.
If you want to show the superiority of Western forces in the Arab- Israeli conflict you better mentioned "Rimon 20"


"While at the College, [b]Col. [/b]Glantz"

"I believe it was Stalin's: "the more outrageous the lie, the easier people will believe it". "

it was Hitler in his 1925 book Mein Kampf

"about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.""
Offline

tbarlow

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 00:35
  • Location: San Antonio, Tx

Unread post05 Aug 2015, 00:34

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few!
Winston Churchill
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post08 Aug 2015, 10:55

thenonflyingdutchman wrote:Let's take the Dutch Airforce as example in the 2020-2030 timeframe. That means 37 F-35A's from 2023 on, and zero F-16's. They say history repeats itself, so let's take three possible enemies.

NL vs Germany (~100 Eurofighters + maybe some Tornado's)
NL vs France (~150 Rafales + maybe some Mirage2000's)
NL vs United Kingdom/England (~80 F-35A/B and about 100 or so Eurofighters)

Against Germany and France they could inflict serious losses to the first wave of attackers i guess, maybe again in the the second wave, but you can't be in the air all the time and you'll get thrashed when you're on the ground.
Against UK with it's mixed fleet, don't even bother; wave the white flag.

I''ve said it before, 37 aircraft is not much of an airforce, even if it's a superior fighter. Quantity has a quality all its own. Numbers do count.

nl vs France! , lol my point; France makes take off 8 gust equipped each one 2 scalp-eg from the frontier zone shooting the missile has 250 km of distance and neutralizes air base, in any event even the 37 f-35 in air vs 70/80 rafale equipped météor, f-35 no chance.comparé nl vs France lol
Previous

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests