This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows:
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6/17/15, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Question
To: "tml@simplelists.com" <tml@simplelists.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2015, 7:44 PM
On 17 June 2015 at
23:48, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We'll never know but then we'll also never know how
well soviet equip, doctrine, & logistics would have
fared either.
We can theorize but we can't know for sure.
===================================
Actually
no. WP forces effectively re-occupied Czechoslovakia and
Hungary using the same 'theoretical' doctrine and
equipment, and NATO wasn't able to do much about those
operations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The WP ops w/i Czech & Hun were hardly ';hot-war- exercises & since NATO *chose* ( not could n't) to do nothing means that we'll never know what would've happened.
We can only *theorize*..
========================================================
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Neither I not
the Soviets were theorising.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure they were. They were theorizing how future ops would
unfold & how to equip their forces in order to prevail.
========================================================================================
The
operation to occupy West Germany was designed in late-1944,
and was only modified from time to time based on increased
capabilities.
You can ask the
question why immediately after the war the first
'IFV' designs produced were
the BTR-152 and BTR-50. The answer is the same as for
BTR-60
and BMP-1.
The basis of
designs was wartime experience that was worked out in the
1930s, and executed
in over 70 operational-strategic operations between 1941
and
1945, admittedly
with varying, but mostly successful results. By 1945 the
Red
Army had it down
to a fairly good formula.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The theories they 'worked out' in the '30's
didn't work out so well when put to the test.
Not even during the 'Winter War' against Finland in
1940 & esp so in 1941.
It took real-life experience to work-out the kinks.
In the end the standard soviet tactics typically involved
horrifyingly high casualties that other nations weren't
willing to accept as SOP.
=========================================================================
The
theories that were worked out in the late-20s and early 30s
worked very well because they were jointly developed by the
Soviet and Weimar officers (discontinued after 1933).
They
didn't work very well in Finland because of the Red
Army's command structure and organisational culture, and
because the Finns managed to put in place a far better
defencive system than the Red Army thought.
From
1941 Moscow offensive onwards the theories worked
increasingly well as all echelons of command gained more
expereince.
"In
the end the standard soviet tactics typically involved
horrifyingly
high casualties that other nations weren't willing to
accept as SOP." - I put this statement down to your
lack of awareness of Second World War history.
The
Red Army suffered 8 million in military casualties, of which
4 million were suffered in the first six months of the
war. (Casualties mean those not returned to combat, so
include POWs.
The
tactics that involved "horrifyingly high
casualties" were predominantly evident during the
forementioned initial six months of the war (Summer-Autumn
1941).
As
for other nations and their tactics, you only need to read
about the Polish and French desperate counter-attacks in
1939-40, British infantry attacks during the Normandy
breakout attempts or the USMC assaults of Japanese-held
islands to know how wrong you are. Sometimes there is no
alternative to a frontal assault. Japanese did it though
they conquered much of Asia through a virtually bloodless
strategy of operational manoeuvre, and Germans did it in the
late war though they were supposed to be masters of
manoeuvre tactics. Just read about the fortress-cities.
So
that leaves one nation I guess.
I only need to read articles written by just about everyone else except you to realize how wrong you are.
========================================================================================
Chobham armour
is a noteworthy but not entirely relevant factor in the
development of correlation of forces in Cold War Europe.
It
matters at the
tactical employment of forces, but is irrelevant
operationally.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well you're the 1st person I've read that has said
that.
I'm going to have to side with the numerous others that
disagree w/ you.
==========================================================
Ok.
No one in
Soviet Union ever talked about the 'death of the
MBT'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I never said they did.
Still, I encountered many folks (& read a lot more) that
consistently beat that drum & then shut up after the new
armor appeared.
=============================================================================================Its not
about new armour. There is a plethora of companies selling
new armour invented in just the last decade. The problem is
not armour, but how to get this armour onto a beach half a
World away in the numbers needed, affordably &
efficiently, and still achieve strategic needs. Do you see
the British Empire on your map of the World? Do you know
what armoured vehicle the British Royal Navy Marines use? It
doesn't have Chobham armour. It has Swedish armour,
and very thin armour at that. The RM brigade is not a
strategic or even operational force to project. Its a
tactical fleet force that can do 'odd jobs' as long
as they don't come up against heavy conventional forces.
The USMC is in the same 'boat' if you pardon the
pun.
.
The reason
I'm the first person you hear talk this way about
Chobham armour is because everyone else talks about tactics,
but professionals think about logistics FIRST. Most
professionals though have careers and families to support.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or the real reason that you're the 1st person is that all the others have correctly rejected your outlier analyses.
==================================================================================================
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=JydxSB9tZc6TS63HiAHJcg6SAwighNGJ