US Army v Red Army, 1945

[1st cavalry]

Irc the op was 1945 , however by June 1946 the US Army had undergone a massive demobilization of her armed forces with only 17 active divisions remaining.

[Pruitt]

I doubt if any of those 17 active divisions were combat ready in 1946. A problem for the Soviets is their agricultural system was in bad shape. Stalin did not de-mobilise his army and most of the men farmers were still in uniform. Women and children can't do all the heavy work needed doing. People forget sometimes the Canadian wheat and American SPAM we were sending to the Soviets during the war. Most of the areas the Red Army campaigned in were also short of food. Red Army soldiers tended to slaughter all the stock and eat all food found! The Red Army was geared to bring up ammo and fuel. Food was not a priority!

Pruitt

[1st cavalry]

Originally Posted by Pruitt

I doubt if any of those 17 active divisions were combat ready in 1946. A problem for the Soviets is their agricultural system was in bad shape. Stalin did not de-mobilise his army and most of the men farmers were still in uniform. Women and children can't do all the heavy work needed doing. People forget sometimes the Canadian wheat and American SPAM we were sending to the Soviets during the war. Most of the areas the Red Army campaigned in were also short of food. Red Army soldiers tended to slaughter all the stock and eat all food found! The Red Army was geared to bring up ammo and fuel. Food was not a priority!

Pruitt

the agriculture did not recover to prewar levels by 1945 but it showed a marked improvement compared to 1942 or 1943.
for instance wheat production was 31,746 thousand tons in 1940
7953 thousand tons in 1943
13363 thousand tons in 1945.

for comparison
America produced 20,172 thousand tons in 1940.
Germany produced 5613 thousand tons in 1940.

[Pruitt]

The main problem would be transport to the rail lines and distribution of said grains. There may be a fair amount of wastage because the bureaucrats counted grain harvested but did not mention how much was wasted because they could not send it to "market".

Pruitt

[1st cavalry]

SUN TZU said :

Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs

Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single PICUL of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.

The plunder of Europe might be politically incorrect but was it military incorrect? ?

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Pruitt

Michele,

The 44 divisions may be accurate, but keep in mind there were many separate Regiments and Battalions.

Sure. That's why I mentioned, among the factors of inaccuracy, the fact that we were not mentioning non-divisional assets.

Naturally, the Soviets were great users of non-divisional assets, too, especially their best artillery was usually non-divisional.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by 1st cavalry

The plunder of Europe might be politically incorrect but was it military incorrect? ?

A question that cyclically crops up in alternate-history venues is "what if the Germans had not been so beastly with the population of the occupied territories in the East?". The thesis is that they managed to field some tens of thousands of volunteers from Ukraine, Russia, and other republics of the SU. So if they had been more friendly, they would have been seen as liberators, and they would have been able to field hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

The answer always is, you can't befriend somebody that you're working very hard to starve. He'll notice that you are trying to starve him.

The Germans lived off the land. It may make sense logistically. And they managed to put in their uniform a few tens of thousands men from the occupied lands.
How many more tens of thousands of men, exactly because of the Germans' plundering policies, chose to become partisans or to fall back with the retreating frontlines in order to show up at a Red Army's depot, or even just simply not to cooperate with the occupiers?

[1st cavalry]

Originally Posted by Michele

A question that cyclically crops up in alternate-history venues is "what if the Germans had not been so beastly with the population of the occupied territories in the East?". The thesis is that they managed to field some tens of thousands of volunteers from Ukraine, Russia, and other republics of the SU. So if they had been more friendly, they would have been seen as liberators, and they would have been able to field hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

The answer always is, you can't befriend somebody that you're working very hard to starve. He'll notice that you are trying to starve him.

The Germans lived off the land. It may make sense logistically. And they managed to put in their uniform a few tens of thousands men from the occupied lands.
How many more tens of thousands of men, exactly because of the Germans' plundering policies, chose to become partisans or to fall back with the retreating frontlines in order to show up at a Red Army's depot, or even just simply not to cooperate with the occupiers?

I see the point that you were making.
However , you must be well aware that :
1 there was not enough adequate equipment to go around even for the axis members ( romania, italy , hungary )
2 most of these men went into non combatant roles
3 every ton of supply you can forage locally translates into another ton of fuel and ammunition , hence a faster advance.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by 1st cavalry

I see the point that you were making.
However , you must be well aware that :
1 there was not enough adequate equipment to go around even for the axis members ( romania, italy , hungary )
2 most of these men went into non combatant roles

I was not the one suggesting that it could be possible to recruit more Ukrainans, I was the one explaining that it would be quite difficult.

3 every ton of supply you can forage locally translates into another ton of fuel and ammunition , hence a faster advance.

Yes, logistically it works. But "militarily", which is what you asked about, is more than just "logistically".

[1st cavalry]

I am leaning towards that idea the benefits of a more lenient treatment would not outweigh the disadvantages .