Romanian and Hungarian infantry tactics

At the moment I am collecting some 20mm Romanian and Hungarian model soldiers for use in wargames.

I am wondering about the level of training and efficiency in the Romanian and Hungarian armies in the early stages of the war on the Russian front. Were the Romanian troops equivalent to the Germans, or closer to the Russians in terms of level of training and tactical skill?

I have read they suffered a lot of casualties at Odessa, but was this due to a lack of modern heavy equipment and weapons rather than lack of tactical skill?

Also, any idea about the Hungarians during this period, particularly the Mobile Corps?

This is just to help me with how to classify them in the rules I am going to use.
I have read that Soviet infantry tactics were awful, and unit cohesion was very bad as for political reasons and paranoia the Soviet hierarchy discoraged infantry units from building up mutual trust and confidence.

Is there any forum like this for the Hungarian army, or any good books about it? I have a fair bit on the Romanian Army (but not much that deals with the above questions) but all I have on the Hungarians is the seciton in the Osprey 'Germany's Eastern Front Allies'.

Hi S......

This is a complex subject.

Firstly, the active divisions of Russian standing army initially encountered were tough formations and probably superior to the Romanian divisions mobilised at the outset of war, which were full of conscripts. However, the standard of Soviet troops fell drastically due to the virtual complete loss of their standing army in 1941.

However, some Romanian divisions had been mobilised before the war and at least three had been retrained by the Germans since the autumn of 1940. They were probably at least as good as the equivalent active divisions of the Red Army and superior to later-raised Soviet formations.

As the Hungarians only used a few specialist mechanised troops in 1941 their average standard was very probably superior to that of either Russians or Romanians, who used almost their entire forces. However, the bulk of the Hungarian Army, was probably of a slightly lower standard than the Romanian in 1941 because so few of its reservists had received any training between the wars due to the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon at the end of WWI.

So, it all depends on which bits of which army -Soviet, Romanian or Hungarian - you are looking at at any given time, because they were not of uniform quality. Only the Germans were fairly consistently superior to all three.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid,
I was wondering if you have seen a book called 'Ivan's War' by Catherine Merridale yet? It is about the Russian soldier's experience of the Second World War, and is based on, as far as I can tell, wide ranging study of Russian archival material, and other primary source data. The picture it paints of Russian training and motivation is not very bright, even (or especially) in 1941/ the Russian regular army before the war.
I was wondering, if you had come across it, you could tell me if you thought it was reliable, and where else I might find information on Russian infantry training and effectiveness?
Also, as far as the Germans go, I read something interesting in a book called '1940: La Guerre des occasions perdues' by a French General whose name I forget, that while some German units were excellent, some of the infantry units left a lot to be desired due to a shortage of experienced cadres.
Thank you for the info. on the Romanians and the Hungarians.

von Manstein himself haven t a very good opionnion about SS fighting units, owing to shortage of experienced cadres. We can find those thoughts in his book, "The lost victories" ....

At the risk of straying off topic: Finns.

Even the Germans respected the Finns. I remember reading a quote from a captain of German mountain troops (who were not exactly sissies themselves) stationed in Finland: his assessment was that a single Finn was worth any two of his men.

I have read Ivan's War several times. As a professional soldier who has done much research on the USSR and American writers ideologically pro-Soviet I make the following comments:
-1 The book is not only pro-Soviet, but pro-Stalinist and actually glorifies, the so-called "humanity" of the Soviets. It is written by the same type of Marxist academic who wrote the book (I forget the title) that is now quoted as an authority on Soviwet unburied dead after world War II. In truth that writer directly devotes two sentence to the subject and attempts to pretend that the fact that the Soviet?russians left millions of skeletons where they fell on World war II battlefields until the 1990s.

The only American publisher brave enough to address this topis, out of misguided fear of the Russians, is www.quikmaneuvers.com. They have an entire page on their web site introducing the public to "The Soviet's Unburied Dead." They also describe that Soviet crime against their own dead, at length in several other books.

-2 The book fails to make any conclusive comments about the preparations of the red Army for an invasion of Germany and Western Europe in 1941.

-3 The author lovingly describes, repeatedly, the wonderful kindness of Soviet war veterans while further demonizing the German military and Hitler. American and Canadian book publishers will not allow any book on World War II to be publshed without the above demonization and long salutes to the religion of Holocaustism
repeating only the Jewish version without reference to any further findings since 1945.

World war II is an ideological war. I use the present tense because the Soviet view continues to dominate all western historigraphy. For exxample, the famous David Glantz is an obsessed Sovietphile. Therefore, I fight against them and have massive evidence that the Soviet Union is the greatest evil ever encountered in the world. I have counted the corpse piles in many places. At the same time I constantly research any new evidence that emerges about the Eastern Front.

One thing is certain, Russia, America, Canada and modern-day Marxist Germany all have vested interests in maintaining numerous myths about World War II. They are siring red diaper babies who now continue the struggle against the few of us who will resist them with facts from here to eternity.


These are my views.

Lets us examine them by presenting evidence not name calling.

Where is any professional material on Romanian and Hungarian tactics? I am still looking.

Dear Saudadesdafrancesinhas,
'Stumbling Colossus' by David Glantz is well worth a read for the Russian side. Basically he argues that the Russians were poorly trained, inadequately equipped, ineptly organised and therefore incapable of engaging in modern military campaigns at the start of the war. He also dispells the view that the Russians were preparing a pre-emptive strike.
Mark Axworthy's 'Third Axis, Fourth Ally' is probably the best resource in English for the Romanians, although this concentrates largely on the organisation and equipment, however the influence of the Germans in training during the war years is obvious when reading through it.
My main reason for posting though is that you say you are buying some 20mm Hungarian and Romanian figures - which manufacturer? I am also interested how you hope to use these parameters in your rule set. It is quite difficult to translate inept organisation and training into a useable rule set i.e. one that does not make the outcome of any game a forgone conclusion.
I use 'Rapid Fire' rules at present, with my Romanian Army, about Regimental in size, composed of mainly 20mm Raventhorpe figures.
Hope this helps
Hannover