| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > Red Army myths |
| Posted by: udar April 21, 2012 07:49 am |
| I just came across an interesting article http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html#an_3 The article talk about tanks in general, and T-34 in special. I assume the author researched well the numbers involved. And the image resulted, at least for me, is that T-34 was a very good tank regarding fiability, mobility and even firepower, but lacked much on ergonomy, coordination and firecontrol, which make it quite vulnerable. The Soviet losses was incredible huge, and just the Germans mistakes or weaknesess (which was many as well, at strategic level especially) and the Allies involvement made the USSR to survive the Axis assault. The myth promoted usually by Soviet or Russian historyography, of an invincible Red Army able to win the war alone, full of heroic Soviet soldiers and equipped with excellent weaponry, rolling over inept adversaries, seem to be a simple myth. Soviet just throw lots of people as "cannon fodder", hoping to stop the Axis advance, and throw everything they had or they received from Americans (especially) and UK in a hope that their bigger numbers will wear down the Germans (and Axis) smaller armies. Soviet army and its sodiers didnt seem to be any extraordinary one as quality compared with any other somewhat important armies (even compared with our soldiers, as combat qualities), as their losses was enormous (both as deaths and prisoners). They was better equipped (not just as number of weapons but as quality of them too) and more experienced after the half part of the war, but still their losses was incredible huge. This show both a disregard of Soviet commanders for the life of simple soldiers, which was simply thrown in the "grind meat" and was saw as expendable materials, and show as well somehow a lack of combat qualities, of both weaponry and men, probably at command level especially, even if the simple soldier or those from lower ranks endured with stoicism the hard conditions and do their best. It was the quantity (as they have a bigger population and industrial base, mostly made during 20-30's), the Allies help and the mistakes or weaknesses of Germans (or Axis) at strategic level that make the Red Army to win in East. In a one on one battle it looks like USSR would lost in front of Germany/Axis, and in a what if scenario and if you move the Red Army in France let say, i think they would lose the same as French army lost the war then, in same amount of time, because they wouldnt have a space behind to retreat, nor have time to receive help. |
| Posted by: dragos April 21, 2012 09:04 pm | ||||||
I didn't read the whole article, just between lines. The author seems to compare losses ratio between German and Soviet tanks like most of the battles were tank duels, when in fact tank encounters were pretty rare in the big picture. Most of the tank losses were due enemy infantry, artillery, aircraft, breakdowns etc. One thing is clear, the Germans used T-34 as a source of inspiration for building their more advanced tanks, Panther and Tiger II, with sloped armor and wide tracks. As for heavy tanks in 1941, even with their obvious shortcomings, the KV tanks were nothing the Germans could cope with in regards of armor. While overall the Soviets lost more tanks than Germans in 1941, probably in the tank versus tank engagements the ratio was reversed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV-1#Krasnogvardeysk
That could be said the same about Germany in the end of the war. At least the Soviet expectations of wearing down the Germans proved realistic, while German actions like the Ardennes offensive of winter 1944/45 was a complete waste of resources as the goal was an illusion.
I disagree with this, and in my opinion, Germany's only hope to win in the East was the collapse of the Soviet leadership, Stalin in particular, which didn't happen, on the contrary... Logistically, Germany was doomed from the start and after the stall before Moscow, the prospect of a prolonged war put Germany in an unfavorable position. Germany was never prepared for an attrition war. As for the comparison with France, at least the Soviets mounted disorganized counteroffensives right from the start, which French didn't, reacting slower. Had the French launched attacks swiftly in critical spots, such as at Sedan, the Germans would have found themselves in a much difficult situation. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS April 21, 2012 10:52 pm |
| Entirely subscribe to dragos remarks! Without criticize too much the manner of writing of the site's author, and away from the idea to praise the T-34 tank, I have to say that I found many inaccuracies or assumptions that contradict many good documented books which I have read! The content of component articles is not necessarily wrong, but some conclusions surely are! To give just one example, in several well documented books which I read, concerning German Pz.III and Pz.IV tanks, including many quotations from the battle reports of some German tank fighting formations, Pz.III tank performance in combat, even fitted with the longer 50mm L/60 gun, is very poor when facing the soviet T-34s! And the books I read are not Soviet or Allied propaganda writings, but well-documented books written by authors like Walther J. Spielberger, Hillary L. Doyle, Thomas Jentz, Horst Scheibert a.o. Even in the footnotes of the posted table highlighting the alleged capacity of the german 50mm long tank gun to destroy T-34 tanks is specified that those data should be taken with great reserve because it seems that the soviet mistaken the long 50mm tank gun with the long 75mm tank gun! |
| Posted by: udar April 22, 2012 07:15 am |
| [QUOTE=dragos,April 21, 2012 09:04 pm] [QUOTE] The author compare losses in general, but yes, i think he seem to consider them more in that line, tank vs tank. However, the overall losses from all causes (tank vs tank, artilery, infantry, aviation) doesnt change the numbers and tank vs tank wasnt quite rare either. And i am very agree that T-34 was an excellent tank as armour, mobility, fiability, even firepower and was easy to be made/simple. What the author say, and i tend to agree with him, is that the tank ergonomy and concept of use was flawed. It had a poor visibility from the inside, and have little to none means of comunication and coordination with other tanks. This mean they get often found themselves in bad tactical positions which better equipped German tanks was usually able to avoid What you post there about that KV-1 tanks was an exception, thats why is so well known. I can easily find similar stories about Tiger tanks in next years [/QUOTE] That could be said the same about Germany in the end of the war. At least the Soviet expectations of wearing down the Germans proved realistic, while German actions like the Ardennes offensive of winter 1944/45 was a complete waste of resources as the goal was an illusion.[QUOTE] Well, i didnt said that Germans didnt make mistakes or have their own weaknesses. Soviet expectation was indeed more realistic, because they have the people and the space, and the Allies, but this show precisely what i said. Soviet relied more in grind down the enemy in a battle of attrition which they hoped to win thru their superior numbers, and not quite by the quality of their command or by some extraordinary overall fighting abilities. They (as Nazis too later) doesnt care about the lives of ordinary people, they saw them as expendables and send them to death without care, puting NKVD formations behind to shoot them when they want to retreat (as Germans used too SS formation with the same role at some point). [/QUOTE]I disagree with this, and in my opinion, Germany's only hope to win in the East was the collapse of the Soviet leadership, Stalin in particular, which didn't happen, on the contrary... Logistically, Germany was doomed from the start and after the stall before Moscow, the prospect of a prolonged war put Germany in an unfavorable position. Germany was never prepared for an attrition war. As for the comparison with France, at least the Soviets mounted disorganized counteroffensives right from the start, which French didn't, reacting slower. Had the French launched attacks swiftly in critical spots, such as at Sedan, the Germans would have found themselves in a much difficult situation.[QUOTE] Well, as the numbers there show, if the Germans (and Axis) would have just a single front to fight, against USSR, they would more probably win in 9 cases of 10. Germans, even building less armoured vechicles then Soviets was very close to be able to destroy everything that Soviets could build and throw against them. Now consider that Allied aviation didnt bomb the German factories and Germans dont have any troops in west (from Norway to France), nor in Balkans or North Africa (due to Italians inabilities). All those divisions (not sure what number, but i assume they was maybe around 40 or so) under let say Rommel comand will show up on Eastern front. And German industry work full capacity, unhintered by Allied bombing campaign. About the comparition with France, well, i doubt the Soviets would do much better in a space as France size, vs a full German assault like in 1941 |
| Posted by: udar April 22, 2012 07:33 am | ||
As far as i understand the author said that German tanks as P-III or P-IV managed to destroy some T-34 taking profit by the weakness of those, namely the poor visibility and poor coordination betwen tanks, so they was able to come at kill distance to them, or to outflank them. A good example is the battle of Kursk There the Soviets known well before the operation the Germans plan, their troops involved, the disposition of forces etc. and was able to bring more troops, enjoying superiority (even a big one in some categories) in every aspect, infantry, tanks, artilery, aviation, plus laying mine fields and doing fortificatioan lines and trenches. Even so and even if they win at the end they lost much more numbers in each of those categories and Germans was attracted too by Allies landing in Sicily and Italy and diverted troops there. That battle was the biggest tank battle in history, up to today, and one of the biggest of WW 2. And you can see there better the ratio betwen losses, even if Soviets had theoretically all the trump cards. They win again because they had much more troops in reserve, and again the involvement of Allies later. Many of them fight heroically, they did had good tanks and more but at the end it was the number who make them win, not some extraordinary fighting qualities or some superior qualitatively weaponry. But yes, Germans made many mistakes too and had their weaknesses as well, they surely wasnt at all invincible |
| Posted by: sebipatru April 22, 2012 09:16 am |
| i m a little confused T 34 destoyed by 20 mm and 37 mm guns as far as i know when romanians tested the R2 tank gun against a T 34 it was useless even in point blank range |
| Posted by: guina April 22, 2012 12:09 pm |
| The main disatvantage of T 34 was its 4 member crew,which lead to a double job for the commander,imposibility to concentrate on each of his duties,which coupled with poor visibility led to a slow reaction to the enemy. |
| Posted by: dragos April 22, 2012 01:05 pm | ||
I was referring to 1941, when German armor was clearly inferior to Soviet. There are more examples of single Red Army tanks holding up against more numerous German tanks, but I have found no story of a single German Panzer III or IV in 1941 being able to do the same when facing multiple T-34 or KV tanks. I guess they tried to avoid engaging those unless they had support artillery or Stukas. Of course, from 1943 on the German came up with their own heavies, but even then the Soviets could came up with something that could neutralize them, such as ISU-152 or KV-85. The situation wasn't so imbalanced as it was in 1941 regarding the efficiency of tanks. |
| Posted by: PaulC April 23, 2012 09:03 am | ||||||
The Germans were better at the tactical level than anyone else during the war so the combat performance at their peak power isn't really surprising.
1943 was the only year in which the soviets were inferior tank wise ( mainly in weaponry , not mobility ). Panther's long 75 and the Tigers 88 coupled with better optics allowed them to engage the the Russian tanks at significant distances over the mostly flat Orel steppe.
Quantity has a quality of its own. |
| Posted by: PaulC April 23, 2012 09:11 am | ||
In Raseinai, a single KV2 held off the 6th Panzer Division for 1 day.One tank vs. 245. The fight ended when the KV2 ran out of ammo. |
| Posted by: Radub April 23, 2012 09:49 am | ||
How much ammunition can a KV2 carry?  245 tanks against one single tank? I think this may be misunderstanding an exaggeration. Radu |
| Posted by: PaulC April 23, 2012 10:57 am | ||||||
You can find the example in Steven Zaloga's book about KV heavy tanks, page 10. I can't access imageshack to upload a screenshot from work. The tank positioned itself at a major crossroad and held the 6th panzer. I found a description of the engagement on another site :
http://www.wio.ru/tank/ww2tank.htm If anything, it doesn't say as much about how resilient the KV tank was, but how immobile and poorly equipped the German were. It boggles the mind how road dependent they were even with their tank divisions. |
| Posted by: Radub April 23, 2012 11:44 am |
| There is no mention anywhere of a "duel between one KV-2 tank and 245 tanks". The text mentions that one KV-2 held back a "german advance". The tank destroyed the trucks of a supply column, a number of attacking artillery pieces and resisted an attack by engineers. At some point 50 tanks are mentioned - and that is accompanied by an exclamation mark in the text, indicating a certain amount of disbelief on the part of the author. There is no mention anywhere of a single tank fighting 245 other tanks, which sounds to me like "Neo fighting numerous Agent Smiths" in Matrix Revolutions. I presume that you included this as an example of how silly Red Army myths got and you do not actually believe that one single KV-2 actually fought 245 tanks. Radu |
| Posted by: dragos April 23, 2012 12:12 pm |
| The same incident here: http://english.battlefield.ru/kv-2.html Also: "The most of KV-2 tanks were lost because of breakdowns. For example, 41st Tank Division lost 22 KV-2 tanks of 33 tanks total. The only 5 tanks were destroyed by the enemy, other 17 tanks were abandoned because of breakdowns or run out of fuel." |
| Posted by: PaulC April 23, 2012 02:19 pm | ||
Of course not. I indicated the no of tanks in 6th Panzer division. Of course, nobody is silly enough to believe you had 245 tanks lined up on one side and the KV2 on the other side. The KV destroyed probably a few transport, a few tanks that dare to attack it and thus stopped the advance of Army Group North spearhead. Say what you want, I've yet to hear a comparable example on the western front. Of course the KV tanks broke down or remained out of fuel in the disastrous confusion of the early days. Many tank divisions did not manage to fire a shot in anger before abandoning their tanks due to fuel, air attacks or mechanical issues which couldn't be fix in a total chaos scenario. But that's beside the point and there is another thread for that discussion. |
| Posted by: udar April 23, 2012 07:48 pm | ||
I think he said they was successfully hit by those calibres from sides or even from behind, because T-34 poor visibility and poor Soviet tactics. Sure, because we had small number of AT guns and tanks, we wasnt able to act tactical most of the time as Germans did. Even if having less tanks or guns then Soviets, Germans still have enough (especially in first phases of the war, up to the last part) to use them eficient |
| Posted by: udar April 23, 2012 08:00 pm | ||
Well, i agree they had better tanks in some aspects as protection and mobility especially, partially fire power as well, but inferior as ergonomy and comand and coordination. The fact they wasnt able to stop or defeat the Axis in first years is then a confirmation of Soviet lack of combat abilities, because if they had both the superior number and superior quality in some aspects, what else can be? Just when they was able to rebuild their army as number and get more tanks and more experience, and the Allies actions started to divert German troops or wear their industry, they was able to turn the tide. Even so, the bullet get very close to their ears, if they would be alone vs Axis they would be defeated i think in 9 cases from 10 |
| Posted by: udar April 23, 2012 08:25 pm | ||||||
Yes, i agree with this
Corect, but, Soviets had too tanks or armour able to fight Panthers and Tigers, like SU-152 or ISU-152, KV-1, KV-2 etc. Then German tanks at Kursk/Orel was mostly P-IV, Tigers was a minority, and Panthers even less, not to mention that Panther wasnt even ready. And Soviets main tank there was T-34, theoretically at least better then the main German one, P-IV. And, in larger number
Corect again. And this was the main quality of Red Army, the quantity of its troops and weaponry. And when even that didnt work, it was the Allies help, both as direct material help (more then 11.000 armour vechicles) and indirect one, but diverting other German troops on other fronts. Sure, Germans relied at some point to same tactics, throwing everything they had in war, and losing it due their own weaknesses, rigidity in thought and some delirious doctrine who made them sometimes to lose the sight of reality. And ofcourse they did made strategic mistakes as well, but that was sometimes forced by the sheer number of their enemies in both fronts |
| Posted by: PaulC April 23, 2012 09:14 pm | ||
Not really. The SU-152 was quite poor AT wise. I've just read the memoirs of a soviet lieutenant who fought the war on this, Kursk included. Accuracy was very poor, reloading slow and it focused on explosive not penetration power. Sometimes the dazzled Germans would bail out, but sometimes, they recovered and put an 88 through the SU.The author states that when they received the SU85 they were relieved. At Kursk, the Germans were superior tank wise. The Tigers both in protection and firepower, the Panther although unreliable shoot superbly and the Mark IVs L43 and L48 guns outgunned the T34. Add the Elephants and the mix is explosive. German tank fired on concealed Russian tanks even at 2500m. The others refrained until less than 300m. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS April 23, 2012 09:50 pm | ||
Udar, I was reffering to the article "The T-34’s Performance in 1942" and especially at the table called "Causes of T-34 losses from June 1941 to September 1942 (expressed as % of total)", where a procent of 54,3 of T-34 losses is caused by 50mm L/60 guns shots of Pz.III Ausf. J/L tanks. And from the books I mentioned (actually I mentioned the authors!) describing the Pz.III and Pz.IV tanks performance, I dare say that such a percentage of losses connected to the Pz.III tanks is impossible! Is much safer to assume that the percentage is result from adding the Pz.IV Ausf. F2/G and the Pz.III Ausf. J/L tanks kills (with probably 80% chances to be caused by the Pz.IV!). The author insistence on the analysis of this table is a mistake, it's obvious for everyone who has read books about the Pz.III tank that it was almost powerless against the T-34! |
| Posted by: PaulC April 24, 2012 08:11 am | ||||
In the first years ? What happened after 5 months at Tula when Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army was effectively routed by T34s ? Or Moscow ? Reading German soldiers memoirs talks about desperation when facing T34s and KV tanks while they consider their own P3 and P4 as inferior. P1 and P2 aren't even mentioned. |
| Posted by: udar April 24, 2012 08:39 am | ||
German tanks at Kursk was mostly P-IV, Tigers was few (i think less then 300 from almost 3000 tanks bring there by Germans), and Panthers even less. Sure, they had some "Elefant" tank-hunters as well, but overall the Soviets enjoyed superiority in numbers and have tanks and armoured vechicles able to fight against German tanks. SU-152 and KV-2 was able to knock out even the Tigers and Elephants, and T-34 was surely able to take out of battle a P-IV. Not to mention that Soviet airplanes enjoyed too a numerical superiority (IL-2 vs JU-87, to count the ground attack planes more used), Soviet known well before (thru Lucy spy ring) the German plans and forces involved and bring there way lot more artilery and infantry, plus laid down fortifications and trenches and lots of mine fields. Even so their losses was way bigger then German ones, which show, as i said, a lack in fighting abilities and a lack in better suited armoured vechicles. Not very ergonomical, had a poor visibility and lack comunication betwen tanks. It was as well the Allies invasion in Sicily who draw Germans (well, Hitler actually) attention there, including by diverting troops from Kursk, which enable Soviets to win at the end, mostly because they had numerical superiority. |
| Posted by: udar April 24, 2012 09:03 am | ||
I think you contradict a little in your response, regarding Panzer III with 50 mm gun (J/L variants). That gun was able to destroy a T-34 from 300-500 m i think, and obviously from flanks. But, the author said that because of T-34 weaknesses, meaning poor visibility from the inside and lack of comunication betwen tanks, as well as lack of training or tactics, German tanks was able to win many times even being inferior in mobility, armour and firepower. Sure, a P-IV equipped with a longer, high velocity 75 mm gun was fairly equal if not better as firepower to a T-34/76. The Soviet tank was better as armour and mobility, but German one was beter as ergonomy and coordination. A P-V Panther was better then a T-34/85 in almost all aspects, except maybe reliability, due to simplicity of the later. However, Germans continued to have superior ratio in battle vs Soviet tanks, despite the later superiority in number, and if wouldnt be the Allies involvement (like bombing the German factories and later diverting German troops on other fronts), Germans would be able to knock out all the Soviet tanks produced during the war, despite their huge numerical superiority and sometimes their superior quality in some aspects |
| Posted by: udar April 24, 2012 09:10 am | ||
Well, Soviet losses (both in human and material numbers) kinda show that. It wasnt ofcourse a linear evolution of things, and Germany/Axis had its shortcomings as well. As i said, i dont consider Germans some invincible army, they surely had their weaknesses as i pointed in other posts. Is just that Red Army had too many of such, which sometimes are covered by propaganda. It is not something unusual however, some Germans did the same, blaming their failures on whatever they find around, except their own mistakes and weaknesses or lack of abilities. Everyone did this, everywhere and in all camps |
| Posted by: ANDREAS April 24, 2012 08:37 pm |
| Udar, it seems we talk about different things or you do not understand what I mean! So I explain: its completely unlikely that more than half of the total number of T-34 tanks destroyed in battle, could be destroyed between march and september 1942 by Pz.III Ausf.J/L! Any explanation or justification for such a hypotesis is ridiculous, given the fact that the germans have modified the Pz.IV Ausf.F tanks for using the long 75mm L/43 gun precisely because of ineffectiveness in the fight of the Pz.III lang (Ausf.J/L). If the Pz.III lang would have achieved such success in the face of T-34, a progressive replacement of roles between the Pz.III and Pz.IV from 1943 would have had no justification! If you look at the table that I quoted, you'll understand that this is completely wrong! The author's conclusions, although relevant, are based on an obviously wrong table, so that they can only be wrong too! If the table would have indicated as a majority percentage of T-34 destruction the 75mm L/43 gun of the Pz.IV, a better gun then the T-34 one, the conclusions would have been completely different! More that that in the footnotes is written: "This table should be treated with caution, and some of the figures appear dubious. For example, it is highly likely that more T-34s were destroyed by long 75mm guns and these could easily have been mistaken by Soviet intelligence as long 50mm guns." |
| Posted by: udar April 25, 2012 03:29 pm | ||
Yes, you are right, i didnt understand it seem, and i was in a hurry when i answered. I think Germans used the P-III (improved already with the 50 mm long gun) because at first there was many lighter Soviet tanks, like BT-7, T-60 etc. P-III was able to fight sometimes even against T-34, but as T-34, an obviously better tank regarding armour, mobility and firepower, began to be encountered more and more, Germans upgraded their P-IV and mostly take out of service the P-III. P-IV with 75 mm L/43 gun, even weaker as armour and mobility, was able to overcome many time the T-34, who lacked coordination (and radio station on board) and had a poor visibility and ergonomy for crew. Russians responded with the modernized T-34/85, but German P-V Panther was still better (probably the best pverall tank of WW 2), except maybe reliability (as it was hurried in war). P-VI Tiger had an even better/heavier armour then Panther, a bigger gun and same good optics and ergonomy, being better then KV-2 and IS-2 as firepower and roguely equal as armour protection i think. Still Soviets produced lot more tanks (beside receiving over 11.000 armoured vechicles from Allies) and still their losses was huge, and just the opening of another fronts and Allied help (thru bombardments in Germany and material help send to USSR) help them to win. If not that they would lose all the tanks and armoured vechicles they produced. It was a close shot for them, and they was helped by their numbers, the big space behind, to retreat there, and by Allied help. They didnt had any significant superiority regarding the quality of their tanks (maybe IS-3 toward the end of the war to represent some advance, still not significant better then Tiger i think). The loses in both humans and material was huge (around 10 millions soldiers dead, not counting the wounded and the prisoners, the armour vechicles losses appear in that article), and this is where i tend to agree with the author. Red Army wasnt anything special regarding combat qualities, which was reflected to their weaponry too. Even when they was qualitatively superior in some aspects, it was the quantity who make them successful at the end |
| Posted by: dragos April 26, 2012 09:37 am |
| Looks like you have your mind already set about superiority of late war German tanks and the fact that SU would lose against Germany if not for the Allies so there is no point in continuing the discussion. I will just point out that there is no general consensus which is better between Tiger and IS-2, and this can generate lengthy discussions without any conclusion. See for example: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85223 http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=100861 |
| Posted by: Radub April 26, 2012 11:09 am |
| Many of those who beleive that the Tiger was the best tank of the war conveniently forget how incredibly complex that interleaved running gear was. If they got any clods of dirt, ice/snow or even rocks in there, they quickly lost their efficiency and often failed altogether. If one of the inner rollers broke, changing it was a nightmare. Yeah, it had all sorts of bells and whistles and assortments of gubbins, but the running gear was its an Achille's heel. The Tiger Tank was Usain Bolt in ski boots. Good looking, full of potential, but hobbled. The Russian IS2 on the other hand, although not that sophisticated, was more mobile. Radu |
| Posted by: PaulC April 26, 2012 11:18 am | ||
The IS 2 was 12t ( or 23t vs. the KT ) lighter, more mobile, much better mileage and fuel consumption, lower, height, better armor protection all around and a gun adequate for a breakthrough tank ( punch through defense lines, not fighting other tanks ). It was probably the best tank of the war ( JS3 also ) considering its purpose. Had they wanted it to fight other tanks, they could have used an 85mm or even 100mm tank gun. |
| Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 12:37 pm |
| @ Dragos I can easily answer you in the same style, "you have your mind already set about superiority of late war Soviet tanks and the fact that SU would win against Germany/Axis alone and without any Allies involvement and help so there is no point in continuing the discussion". Except that i was showing some numbers who speak by themselves (if that article is correct regarding the numbers, and i dont see why not) Look some quotes: "Soviet output during WWII was 99 150 fully tracked AFVs (including all types of assault and self-propelled guns) produced from June 1941 to May 1945, and an additional 11 900 tanks and self-propelled guns received via Lend Lease.(22) ..............This is Germany production........................ "A total of around 49 900 fully tracked AFVs out of a total production of 89 254 AFVs of all types. This represents around 50% of Soviet fully tracked AFV production during WWII. It should be remembered (a fact that seems to be often forgotten) that Allied strategic bombing reduced German AFV production by at least 10% in 1943, 40% in 1944 and even more during 1945, exactly when German AFV production had peaked." "One very significant point about these figures is that if we remove the 11 900 AFVs received by the Soviets via Lend Lease, and allocate all German WWII fully tracked AFV production to the Wehrmacht’s East Front forces (i.e. add those lost fighting the Western Allies), then the Germans would have only needed kill loss ratio of 2.45 to 1 in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941 (23 300 AFVs) and all 99 150 fully tracked AFVs produced during the war (122 450 AFVs). This figure is well below the 2.94 to 1 kill-loss ratio historically achieved. These figures demolish another more recently fashionable myth relating to the East Front; specifically that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII without any input from the US or Commonwealth forces." So, in a one on one, Germany/Axis vs USSR, USSR will lose, if we look at that numbers. If we look at the numbers of deaths, and how many soldiers they lost (including prisoners and wounded, other millions), Red Army looked quite different from the propaganda image in which they tried to depict themselves. Combat quality was rather poor, and relied mostly on large numbers of troops used as cannon fodder, forced many times to battle by NKVD "death squadrons" from behind (not that Germans didnt do the same at some point). Some weaponry categories was good, but tactics and training for use them was poor so this lead to huge number of losses. Their biggest quality was their quantity and the big space they have behind, to retreat. Then German mistakes (especially rigidity in though and sometime a cut from reality way to see the things, based on their own propaganda or indoctrination, because in reality they wasnt quite all around superior to others, sometimes even contrary) and Allies help make them win at the end. @ Radub and PaulC Well, IS-2 was simplier and a bit more reliable then Tiger, and was more mobile. However, it has a weaker gun for AT role (i think the 88 mm Tiger gun had better penetration and was able to knock out a IS-2 before IS-2 122 mm larger projectile be able to take out the Tiger), weaker fire control and less ammo. Not to mention a much longer time for reloading compared with Tiger, which had almost 3 times more ammo and better optics and fire control. Armour wise, maybe IS-2 have a better all around protection, but still Tiger had the better frontal protection, which in head on battle count the most. |
| Posted by: dragos April 26, 2012 01:14 pm | ||
The figures alone means nothing. You need a context for them. In how much time is supposed Germany to defeat Soviet Union, did it have enough logistics, manpower and all other resources for that period of time? Did it have enough resources to maintain the production at the highest peak for an indefinite period of time? How fast could Germany replace the losses in AFVs and how fast could the Soviets, and so on. Otherwise, drawing that conclusion from those numbers alone is kindergarden approach.
Yeah, and some soviet generals has absolutely no role in this, they just happened to be around and watch the show  |
| Posted by: PaulC April 26, 2012 01:21 pm | ||
A bit more reliable ? That's the understatement of the year. Most Tigers were destroyed when they were blown up due to mechanical damage or remained out of fuel. Somehow, the soviets managed to keep their heavies going. Reliability is important. Regarding the AT gun, this was a conscious decision. The soviet did not aim for a tank killer, but a breakthrough tank. They had the 85mm or the superb 100mm gun that could have been use instead of the 122mm. Looking at how the war was going, they decided the most important target would be enemy emplacements and fortifications and for that you need a HE as big as possible. IS2 is the KV2 of 1944. The battered german tank formations, out of gas and of trained crews, with poor quality armor in the last months could be dealt and were dealt efficiently by hordes of T34/85s. As for Armor, how could 100mm vertical be better than 100 at 60 degrees ? |
| Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 02:45 pm | ||||||
Yes, we need a context, and we need to dont eat all the propaganda either. If you re-read those numbers and dates without a preset image in your mind, you will realize that Soviet losses was unsustainable on long run. They wouldnt be able to keep up with them, neither as human losses or material ones (tanks or AFV's). As i said before, the battle of Kursk (except the very end) is the best example of what would happen without Allies involvement. Huge Soviet losses, even when they had all the trump cards, and just the diversion of Sicily invasion make the Hitler to change his focus (and troops) from Kursk to Italy, and allowed Soviets to win. This in condition in which already about 10 % of German industry was affected by Allied air assaults.
Well, using NKVD troops to shot the ones who retreat and throwing human waves attacks isnt quite a masterpiece of strategic planification. Having at disposition lots and lots of troops and materials and a huge space to retreat if needed isnt either. Especially if you see the losses, which was enormous. Sure, some was smart enough to copy what they saw good to others, or come themselves with some good ideas, but overall it was indeed the quantity who help them the most. Using sacrificial units for "battle recon" missions as send a regiment to attack the enemy position and get slaughtered just to see where the enemy had the artilery or machineguns was a common practice. Those generals doesnt care about the lives of simple soldiers, those was expendable for them. If they refused or retreated they will be simple shot by NKVD. |
| Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 02:53 pm | ||
The 100 mm gun was still in prototype phase, thats why they used the 122 mm one, which was already in full production. They considered is not good to stop production and retooling the factory to produce the other caliber. The German tank production decreased in number and quality mostly because Allies bombardments, if not those the Soviet armoured vechicles would be destroyied faster then the could produce more. Sure, Germans had their own drawbacks and weaknesses, and we can discuss those too, but for now this is about Red Army. About the armour i think the German one had a better quality, when they did had good raw materials to work with. |
| Posted by: dragos April 26, 2012 03:10 pm | ||||
Do you give Kursk as an example of successful German strategy and operation ? Are you serious?
That seems to become the most stereotypical phrase about the Eastern Front. Speaking about "preset image in your mind"  |
| Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 03:23 pm | ||||||
Well, lets see. Soviets know well before the operation about the German plans (from Lucy spy network which had relation in German high command circles) They know the German troops involved and their battle plans and prepared acordingly, bringin in a superior number of tanks and airplanes, much more infantry and way much more artilery. They prepared the area with lots of mine fields, fortifications and trenches. Yet they lost way much more troops, tanks, airplanes etc then Germans, and was the Allies invasion in Sicily and Hitler decision to divert troops from Kursk there, so a German shift of focus, that allowed Soviets to win. Maybe wasnt the most briliant example of military prowess, but surely Soviets looked more bad
Yes, and at least 10 millions (if not more) dead soldiers (and many other millions of wounded and prisoners) its show nothing, are just cool examples of excellent combat qualities and superb strategies, tactics and training, right?  |
| Posted by: Florin April 27, 2012 02:12 am |
| Most important Soviet WWII myth: the Red Army won the war alone. Most important American WWII myth: America won the war alone (even though they do not put this as bluntly as me). A common British myth, taught in their schools until 1957: well, there was some help from the Soviets and the Americans, but the British Empire was the work horse ensuring victory against Axis. |
| Posted by: dragos April 27, 2012 03:22 pm | ||||||||
It appears that the communist myth of the Soviet army resisting heroically against the unexpected attack of the ruthless fascists, after the fall of communism transformed into the opposite extreme, of the German army fighting valiantly against all odds, always in numeric inferiority but superior in tactics, men and equipment, against mindless hordes of the Red Army. Its in the same category as the communist myth. Only someone heavily indoctrinated can not to see it. I admit I have not studied the problem in detail, but from what I have read, the so called blocking detachments were formed in 1942 and were made of regular army troops and not NKVD, and I read no evidence of them shooting retreating soldiers en masse. Of course, the NKVD dealt in a brutal manner with the penal / disciplinary units, but this is not the problem in question and representative for the whole Red Army. Maybe you have some evidence about NKVD detachments mass murdering their own regular troops on the battlefield as they retreated and please do enlighten us. |
| Posted by: udar April 27, 2012 05:17 pm | ||
OK, those detachments wasnt formed just by NKVD, but by regular army troops too, this doesnt change the fact they existed. Now please explain me this. Red Army, a big one armed to the teeth with lots of weaponry, like those tanks you said was so clearly superior to any other, with some good general and so on, how they had such incredible huge amount of losses? I mean, they lost easily at least 10 millions soldiers (i saw estimates of even 14 millions, but lets stick with the lower estimation), in condition in which they had much more troops and much more tanks (better then Germans you or some say, obviously better then us). More then that they received huge amounts of material help from Allies (Lend Lease). Their military losses was bigger then combined military losses of US, UK, Germany, Japan, China, Romania, Italy, France, Yugoslavia, Poland, Finland and Hungary to name just the most known combatants. And they fight mostly on just one front (with a smaller, less significantly hard intervention against Japan later)  What can be the reasons? Low combat abilities despite the eroism show by some soldiers? Weak tactics, some shortcomings of their weapons systems? Poor strategy employed by their generals? |
| Posted by: dragos April 27, 2012 06:11 pm |
| I'd say major deficiencies in the chain of command starting from the highest echelons down to the big units such as army corps and divisions, which lead to chaos and confusion, miscarried orders, lack of coordination and cooperation between them and so on. Also some generals were of questionable competence, but given such a large army body, it's hard to compare to other countries armies, I won't draw a conclusion. Since many of the older generals came from the Civil War experience, their mentality could have been influenced by the methods and tactics used back then. Also political interference into army matters was a major negative factor (although in some cases of stubborn strong-point resistances could be beneficial). As you may know, all new plans of operations needed to be approved by Stalin (like Hitler), but as the war progressed Stalin began to trust and grant more liberty to generals that proved capable, while Hitler became the opposite. |
| Posted by: Petre April 27, 2012 06:37 pm | ||
Found in an analitic text of S.Bogatyrev : The efficiency of the operation of The VVS – Ch.F. against the enemy shipping in the Danube Delta was kept silent. In fact, the first two months of war more than 30 ships were destroyed and about 30 damaged. It is not clear one thing - why till now this outstanding success is not written. The results of these raids have been established and verified at the end of the war. Moreover, these successes have been classified and in the open press did not fall until the collapse of the USSR. But why ? Maybe because it somehow did not fit into the overall concept of describing the outbreak of war, ie, the "sudden and perfidious attack," an outdated technology, "the general unpreparedness, etc. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the successful auxiliary operations on the Lower Danube were discordant for the major air operations of VVS-ChF to block the Constanta naval base, which were not marked by major successes but with significant losses. |
| Posted by: Taz1 May 07, 2012 07:56 pm |
| About the red army there is much to sey. One thing must be sublinieted in teh first place that all the great powers overestimated their own capabilities and underastimated theyr adversaries. Red army wad wis whichnes and his dtong points. The huge losses sustein by the red army in the firs year of the war was dued to the the fact that they tried to fight germans on egual termens whith a fast mobile warfere in which the german were masters and the red army lack the comunication, tactical skils and cualified mens to conduct such a warfere. Entirers soviet army were surenders and destored by the germans after training to atach the germans at Stalin orders . In defens action soviets were much more eficient. We can say that the germans lerned from rusians the defense and the rusians the atack. Red army aequipement armament were good and in some cases excelent. Artilery (not all )a.t where very good even better then the germans .But what soviet lack was very important in modern warfere . Comunication equipement comunication skils , a good training program for the recruts, a well trained airforce . The best examaple was T-34. It repesent the best soviet union .On one hand russian tehnical genius and on the other hand soviet union tehnical backwardness .A revolution desing superior fire power mobile etc but with no radio in 1941 poorly designed from the ergonomic poit of view , primitiv optic sistem only 4 men crew all that made the t-34 not so efective weapon in the combat. It was dedly in ambush or defence in 1941 against the germans but in atach was not abig problem for the germans to detroed it. So at least in the first year of war Stalin epuration of the officer corps and orders toatack the germans were the the responsable for the red army desasters. But off corse the russians werenever a much for the germans on equals termns. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 11, 2012 06:28 pm | ||
I agree with your opinion, Taz1! It's true that on the one hand the T-34 tank was in 1941-42 the most advanced tank of his time as concept, but was from the beginning burdened by many manufacturing problems as well as problems of training and use in battle by the soviet troops! I recently read a book which analyzes very serious the T-34 tank and points out well the advantages and shortcomings of this so famous tank! |
| Posted by: MMM July 11, 2012 07:09 pm | ||
Was it? Did it have radio equipment? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 11, 2012 08:00 pm | ||
MMM, not all, but some did! But I said that they were successful as a concept, not so great when they arrived to the troops... their legend far exceeded the reality! |
| Posted by: MMM July 11, 2012 11:27 pm |
| "Some", as in one tank per company? The truth is that Soviet engineers didn't feel the need for radio communications; that was also a reason for T34's simplicity of design, IMO. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 12, 2012 06:49 pm |
| ...can only speak of numbers I know... I am referring to T-34 tanks send from the factory to the troops with or without radios... my numbers are only about Harkov Plant (Ukraine) no. 183 produced T-34 tanks from january to october 1941... from 1560 tanks send to the troops, 612 had radios, that's about 39% of them all... But from other readings I must confirm that I know that the installation of radio stations on tanks was halted from july 1941, after german invasion... so I doubt "that Soviet engineers didn't feel the need for radio communications" as you said! |
| Posted by: MMM July 12, 2012 07:08 pm |
| OK, then WHY wasn't the radio equipment available in all T34's? Oh, in other Soviet models (and French, and Czech) there was the same problem... |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 12, 2012 07:39 pm |
| I know that it's unpolite to answer one question with another question but I think that question includes a default response... why most T-34 units almost completely lacked 76mm antiarmor projectiles in summer 1941? Why spare parts for T-34 tanks were also missing? Why over 60% of all T-34 tanks lost in summer 1941 were actually abandoned and not destroyed in battle (that's what the Germans claimed!)... |
| Posted by: MMM July 13, 2012 03:27 pm |
| Well, it's not about politeness or rudeness, but I fail to see the point in your questions. Perhaps the armor projectiles were "missing" because they weren't meant to be there, much like the radios... perhaps the mighty planners didn't think they'd need such powerful projectiles agaist the German tanks... I do not know about the spare parts (but the famous efficiency of any communist system could be a reason - you've cetainly lived for a little in it, didn't you?), but on the issue of abandoning T-34's, that might have happened because of lack of fuel (now please don't ask me "why") or some other theories, on which you should consult Suvorov and Solonin on this very forum... Search "Mark Solonin", ok? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 13, 2012 05:31 pm |
| MMM, I have no need to consult this forum on Suvorov theory as I took an active part in that discussions... the point is that the middle way (and not the extremes) should always be carefully analyzed! The middle way is to analyse in a balanced manner the performance of Soviet heavy weapons of WW2 recognizing their qualities as well as weaknesses... I don't like the idea (that is surely wrong) to underestimate the Soviets ...and here we talk about the weapons produced by them... T-34 as a famous exemple... that, beyond the myth which it created, was superior to all tanks the world have seen in 1941! Is another conversation the reasons for what it didn't prove his superiority! But the lack of T-34 radios was an element who become chronical in late 1941 and was caused by the necessity of production as large as possible (which created many other problems!) and backwardness of soviet technology compared to the west... they produced as many tanks they could, as simple as they could, without radios and other "advanced" equipment... The Germans widely used captured T-34 in 1941-1943 and not only temporary... is certified the use of platoons and even whole T-34 companies by the 1st, 8th and 11th Panzer Divisions taking into account that utilisation of captured T-34 tanks was dangerous because most gunners fired on silhouette instead of markings... The germans produced the highly valuated Panthers who were upgraded and modernised versions of the T-34... I am not falling into the other extreme to overestimate this tanks, but the problem with the radios was definitely not the cause to the disaster of summer 1941... read Solonin book and you can have a picture if you want! And again the radio missing is later than summer-autumn of 1941! |
| Posted by: PaulC July 13, 2012 08:12 pm |
| About 76mm antitank ammunition, some words. The 76mm gun was the main soviet divisional gun. The 1939 model and the 1941 ZIS3 were the best field guns of their time. However, little thought was given in the pre-war period to making them AT capable. The soviets considered the 45mm to be enough. The ammunition was produced accordingly, lots of 76mm HE but very few AT. In may 1941 in the Kiev district they had 19,000,000 HE 76mm shells and only 132,000 AT shells. The load for the tanks was 25 AT 76mm for KV1 and 13 for a T34. Is it too little ? I don't think so. What happened was that the war didn't start as planned and from the looks of it, most units didn't receive their planned combat loads. Some tanks had to fight other tanks with only 76mm HE. |
| Posted by: MMM August 07, 2012 06:37 pm | ||
Hey, do you know something I don't? Was it translated in some other language? Because I don't know Latvian and / or Russian and neither do I plan to learn them! Later edit: ebook at Polirom, in Romanian!!!!! |
| Posted by: ANDREAS August 07, 2012 09:26 pm |
| MMM, I bought the book several months ago, in a bookstore Carturesti, romanian language of course, who is called Butoiul si Cercurile 22 iunie 1941 sau cand a inceput Marele Razboi pentru Apararea Patriei, Polirom 2012. You probably have found the digital edition! |
| Posted by: MMM August 08, 2012 10:42 am | ||
Yeah, I found later the printed version as well; I'll get it this weekend... I never thought it'll appear in Romanian before English!  Lately I read mostly some other foreign books (see the topic) so I never checked Solonin's site again... |
| Posted by: junior August 29, 2012 06:23 pm | ||
We native-English speakers tend to prefer the Western European Front for some odd reason. Can't imagine why. Truth be told, even the fighting in Southern Europe (i.e. Italy) doesn't get the attention that it deserves in the West. And don't get me started on Africa or the Pacific land campaigns (i.e. Burma, China, etc...). There's a massive amount of focus on the fighting in France to the detriment of every other theater that Western Allied troops participated in. |
| Posted by: MMM August 29, 2012 07:04 pm | ||
Well, I can: because it was "closer" to you, because this was the main front for English-speaking troops, because most of the books were written, published and read by authors and public from there etc. But the problem is the real slaughter was on the Eastern Front... Like it or not, the Red Army actually did pay the highest price. (And I cannot believe I'm saying that, as I am no fan of USSR and / or Red Army) |