Suvorov books, ww-2

i suppose this is about "Dora", as other railroad artillery was neither as expensive nor as useless.

That - and not only! There were also other "huge" cannons (though not as big as Dora), some of them even mentioned in von Manstein's memoirs. Fun (?) fact: also in ww1 the Germans had some big cannon aimed to Paris! Perhaps this was a real fixation

Hallo,
Perhaps the question was already asked, but I guess it's not a shame if I ask again: What was the purpose of Stalin or Stavka when he reformed its armored and mechanized forces of the brigades in the division size? To be more clear, why they reformed the existing armored corps already tested in combat operations in Mongolia, Poland and Finland (1939-1940) in the new and more powerful mechanized corps, expanded in number and volume (at least on the paper...)?

Stalin was not alone: Hitler did that as well in 1941, reducing the number of armored regiments per armored divisions; so, from 10 divisions of 2 armored rgts. each he got 20 divisions of 1 armored rgt. each!
I will get back with the reasons, at least according to Liddell Hart!

Actually there was another step between the 1930s tank corps and the 1941 mechanozed corps. A radically different one.

The Kulik Commission formed by Stalin in 1939 to study the experiences of the Spanish Civil War recommended the replacement of the existing tank corps with smaller units that could better cooperate with the infantry. 39 tank brigades were formed by spring of 1940, as well as 3 motoried armored brigades and 31 tank regiments and 100 tank battalions serving with rifle and cavalry divisions. Because the process was a slow one, the 10th Tank Corps did get to see action in the Winter War before it too was disbanded.

Impressed by the performance of the German Blitzkrieg in France, the NKO (People's Defence Commisariat) issued the order on 6 July 1940 to form nine mechanized corps. The different view was also due to the different leadership after Timoshenko had replaced Voroshilov after the initial humiliation in the Winter War. In February and March 1941, the formation of an additional 20 mechanized corps had begun. These were seen as vital for chieving success in the new type of warfare. The plan was to finish building up this new massive mechanized force in the summer of 1942, although at the pre-war production rate they estimated that it would take three years to completely equip them with the nominal number of heavy tanks.

do you mean the "Karl-Gerät"?
because any other would be regular railroad artillery.

Thank you Victor!
Interesting informations! I also suspected that Germany and its armored forces were the inspiration for the Soviets to reorganize their armored formations. Interesting is the fact that a few years after the end of World War II, maybe inspired by the British and Americans, the Soviets returned to the divisional structure for their armored and mechanized troops...

I understand that the number of tanks was different in tank divisions. In German ones, were about 200 tanks/division, in American ones, about 300 tanks/divisions, and in Russian ones, about 400 tanks/division.

On paper, yes!

The Red Army's force generation saved the Soviet Union from collapse in 1941, but with the sacrifice of millions of soldiers that went into battle without a real chance of survival. However, it is mistaken to think that these units carried any potential in the advent of a Soviet offenssive.

I know that they were cannon fodder , many of them would last no more than two months.
However :
From were did the officers and NCO came ?

This post has been edited by osutacincizecisidoi on March 16, 2010 12:38 pm

My posts were related to the posibilty of soviet invasion of Romania in 1941 . I did not suggest, implied, assumed a drive into the heart of the third Reich even oance.

This post has been edited by osutacincizecisidoi on March 16, 2010 01:18 pm

For the more inspired than me, please give me a logical explanation to the above text : what military industry in the world creates a weapon system -in our case a piece of artillery- and after testing, put it into production, and, one year later of this event, stop the production with no major defects found?

It was to heavy for a divisional artilery piece or antitank weapon.

It could be, osutacincizecisidoi,
but didn't they realized this before starting the gun production? Didn't they realise the gun need mechanised traction? Hard to believe Stalin or STAVKA were fools! They did produce however the excellent 152 mm howitzer-gun M1937 (ML-20) that the germans only dream about!
And about the weight of this gun "...the standard German 105 mm gun, the 10.5 cm sK 18 was much heavier at about six tons. The German gun also fired slightly lighter (15 kg) shell..." What about that?

From their homes I presume.

Mostly were mobilized reserves, but some also resulted from the elimination of the corps from the Army structure, from the reduction of the size of the standard rifle division etc. However I am not familiar with any figures regarding the fact that the new rifle divisions had all the necessary officers and NCOs. Are you?

@andreas

Might be one of the reasons why the germans lost the war.

For the sake of clarity i will stick only to soviet weapons.
At the start of the war the soviet divisional artilery had around 33.000 pieces, the corps artilery 4100 pieces.
The divisional pieces included the modern 76mm F-22 and F-22 Usv , 122 mm M-30 , 152 mm M-10 but the majority were WW1 weapons upgraded in the '30s.
The corps artiley pieces included the 152 mm ML-20 and 122 mm A-19.

The 76 mm USV weight 2,500 kg, the 122 mm M-30 3,100 kg, the 152 mm M-10 4,550 kg.
At 4,300 kg your gun weight almost as much as a 152 mm piece and fired a shell weaker than a 122 mm one .

As a corps gun the M-60 had good range but it was outranged by both ML-20 and A-19 wich fired much powerful shels.
It's one thing to field a few heavy weapons with good range in the cops artilery but it would be criminal to equip the divisional artilery with a weapon that weight to much for his caliber.

So i guees that Stalin or STAVKA were not fools.

This post has been edited by osutacincizecisidoi on March 17, 2010 08:13 am