Suvorov books, ww-2

Well, ucrainians was already included in USSR. The most close barrier betwen Russia and Germany was Poland. If Stalin and bolsheviks didnt grab a part of it, all Poland will be included in Germany occupied zone. This mean that the border betwen USSR and Nazi Germany eager for "lebensraum" will be more to east, more close to Moscow.
Baltic countries might fall too in German sphere (remeber eastern Prusia was there) opening a new breach closer to Moscow

Romani would not join wilingly Germany, but as Romanian oil was quite needed or wanted by Germans it was very possible that Germany would try to do here what it did in Poland, Yugoslavia, France, Norway etc.
Or just ask us directly, "hey, either give us that oil and let us move to your teritory, either will attack you in full force, with our allies Hungary and Bulgaria, and give them Transilvania, southern Dobrogea, whatever".
How long we'll resist, with France already occupied and with UK trembling on its island and hoping for US help, let alone able to join the fight here?

The space there was important, the space put betwen Moscow and Berlin, as far as Moscow as better.
Its ilogical to put your planes too far from the border, which will be out of their reach and unprotected. The means of those planes was to shot down enemy planes who pass over the border and attack ground troops. I dont think it is good idea to let those invasion forces come near Kiev let say, and just then start the dogfights with them

Well, from all those troops it was some able to fight back, at least here and there.
About the defensive lines, Soviets was caught in the process of dismantling Stalin one and move the materials to build the Molotov one. It was a surprise for them that the war in west was ended so quickly, so thats why they was caught unprepared in this regard.

About Sovites troops then, and seeing how not too well they did most of the war, how comunications betwen diverse echelons and hierarchies was, i am not sure if being caught unprepared was such a surprise

OK, they had 5 millions, which is not as much if you think to this. There was 3 millions Germans i think, around 1 million Romanians that can be mobilized, few hundred thousands Finns and Hungarians, that might come from west. Then was 1 million Japanese in east i think.
Many Soviet tanks was obsolete, the new models, T-34 and KV was still not that much. Same for airplanes. And the space to be protected was huge.

Yes, they had numerical superiority in troops and war material. But lacked some in quality of those, training, tactic, readiness.

In 1943 about 10% of German industry was destroied by Allied bombers and Germans was diverted in Italy but same Allies invansion. After they was forced to go in Africa previously (remember Africa Korps of Rommel).
Then in 1944 some 30% or 40 % of their industry was affected by bombers, and all of their allies in Europe changed sides (Italy, Romania, Finland, Hungary wished to do that too, quite first, but was occupied by Germans, then defeated). And Allies opened another front, in France, diverting even more German troops there.

Then Soviets received thru Lend Lease program almost 12.000 armoured vechicles, including many tanks. I think this counted quite a lot

See above some reasons

There was exceptions, but as an overall, Soviets didnt do quite well on all WW 2, they losses was huge, and not just when they was caught by surprise. This mean a lack of combat abilities, and relying on masses of troops and weapons throw against the enemy, WW 1 style, just fight with WW 2 weapons.
This isnt quite the image of competent generals of Stalin, as Suvorov said. One like Rokosovsky was bring back from jail i think, they surely wasnt that good as Suvorov try to paint them

Thats debatable, you exaggerate their posibilities just for the sake of argue. Told you what he wanted to do, move Stalin line on Molotov line position. This was in process when Germans attacked, Soviets didnt believed the war in west will end that quick

I saod above what helped Soviets in 1943-1944. Yes, Germans didnt conquered Moscow, yes, they lost at Stalingrad in 1943, but still they was able to fight successfully the red army, see Kursk. But by then already the Allies involvement diverted many of their resources in other directions as well

I am sorry, i dont know where, i remember i read somewhere about this, and about Soviet BT tanks, adapted for speed on western roads, acording to Suvororv. If he didnt said that, sorry, i must not understanded well

Even so, with 1 tank of 3 having a radio (i thought it was way less then that) it was hard to coordinate them. That one needed to use flags and so to command the other 3, as the ergonomy of them wasnt too good and at any sudden change of direction or so they needed to be sure they keep in sight the comanding tank. Not to mention that if that 1 tank with a radio would be destroyed, the others would remain on their way

How see the things is like that.

Russians in official propaganda try to portray themselves as the "good guys" who wasnt hand in hand with the Nazis at first, and who suffered a lot because of those Nazis (which is true after 1941, and totally untrue previously, when they was the best buddies and collaborated a lot) and they didnt do anything wrong, didnt act in imperialistic ways (it was some self defence actualy ) nor was prepared for war (this is the reason of their losses).
Then with the heroism of soviet people and a red army reborned from its ashes they managed to defeat almost alone (or basically alone) the Nazi brutes and liberated Europe and so on.

Then is Suvorov propaganda (who showed up in 1990 if i am not mistake, a period when USSR was in a very hard position and needed a new face, a dangerous one not to play with)

So he say that Soviets was very well prepared for war, and not just that they wasnt some pacifist people at that point (as oficial soviet propaganda said) but the devious Stalin and his guys planned and was ready to conquer the world.
So now on USSR is portrayed as a scary mamooth like beast, agressive but calculated, with incredible devious plans shrouded in mistery and ready to put down anyone around and conquer the world.

The problem with both of this is that cold facts kinda disagree with them.

Soviet tanks like T-34 was very good, but have too weaknesses that was covered and hidden by propaganda. Red army was huge and had lots of weapons, but it wasnt at all a monolith rolling invincible over its enemies, and without Allies help they would probably lose the war in east.
Soviet Union wasnt the mortal enemy of Nazis, just much later, at first they was the best buddies and allies. USSr wasnt a peace loving country but an empire ready to grab as much as possible.
Soviet soldier wasnt always the heroic one, but was sometimes forced to fight by seeing the bullets shot by NKVD in the heads of his comrades who retreated. Their training and morale wasnt always, or wasnt many times, up to the task, they win thru numbers usually.
Soviet generals wasnt many of them some briliant commanders, but used many times same WW 1 or XIX century obsolete tactics, replacing maybe the cavalry with tanks and disregarding completely the lives of their soldiers used simply as cannon fodder.

Sure, maybe Stalin really wanted to conquer Europe, at least. I dont say he didnt think to try such huge scale invasion, just that he wasnt ready in 1941, as he didnt expected the Germans to win that easy in west.
The incredible huge amount of losses suffered by Red Army show this, and is not just in 1941, but during all the war period

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=85940
Udar, I agree with some of your assessments, but others are certainly inspired by Soviet propaganda... the defense of USSR industrial or strategic objectives by military occupation of Bessarabia, the Baltic States and a large part of Poland is a pure Soviet propaganda... I think you didn't mean that! And the story that the USSR was ready for war only in 1943 or 1944 is also uncredible... most experts give the approximate date of soviet army being ready for attack in spring 1942... if there wasn't Barbarossa!

PaulC, you are right in a sense and for I haven't nuanced my statement: the informations about the poor quality of tank crews I found it in several books, but was related to the new T-34 tanks (and rarely on the KV heavy tanks) and in general to newly formed tank (and mechanized) units!
Another element worth taking into account it related to the new military structures in the soviet army -Mechanized Corps, Tank & Mechanized Divisions, which create serious problems in leadership and coordination of units, and which create big problems in any battles the red army would be involved! Maybe in offensive actions these problems would have been less visible, but the problem remains open...

Well, that might be a part of their concerns. Russians became imperialists more from fear i think.
I mean, after centuries of Mongol and Tatar occupation and devastation, not just that they aquire lots of their conquerors genes, but developed too a sense of isolation and fear that someone from outside will come over them. So they try to keep the foreign powers as far as possible. Even by conquering other countries in an attempt to eliminate possible enemies.
It wasnt an imperialism started like "hey, lets conquer those and take their resources and bring them our culture". Russia had and have lots of resources much easy to use then conquering or attacking others, and as culture isnt in position to impose it to others too much (despite their XIX century authors or musicians lets say, which are great and so called "panslavism", blocked by us mostly, in this area).

They do that imperialism because of a primary fear to not be conquered again and in the same time because of the Mongol/Tatar model they was used to, like send the hordes to pillage and steal from others.

It is very possible that Stalin wanted to conquer at least much of Europe, to "liberate" the working class around. But my opinion is he planed that first because he was afraid that a capitalist coalition like that one who supported "the whites" will be formed again against him (and i agree here with Suvorov who said he supported Hitler so to break that possible anti-soviet coallition), and as well because he followed the line imposed since Mongol/Tatars occupation of Russia, like occupy and pillage others as you can.

Sure, all this was "dressed" in nice propaganda words and adapted to modern times.

So then it comes the fairy-tale, a good propaganda when real facts was mixed with lots of lies, that "maskirova" needed to cover what exactly is going on and what are the real facts.

-Fairy-tale, Suvorov variant

1 - SU and Red Army was lead by devious, inteligent and daring leaders, Stalin and his men, who get rid of incompetents and formed a secret plan to take over the world
2 - Red Army was excellent prepared and equiped, best in the world in this regards
3- as they are preparing to strike in Europe, especially against Germany, was surprised by the German counter-invasion, which lead to lots of casualties

However, as i see the facts

1- SU and Red Army was lead by a very mixed people regarding their qualities. Stalin was not stupid at all, quite contrary, but he was lead by a paranoia too, which make him to do mistales and miscalculations as well.
Soviet generals relyied mostly in WW 1 tactics at best, just using WW 2 weapons. Some was smart enough to adapt in time, even borrowing from others, including or especially Germans.
They was chose on the basis of loyality first, and just after competence. Rokosovsky i think, one of their generals, was pulled out of prison and gived comand just when things started to get hot

2 - Red army had as main quality their quantity. Many of propaganda about them is just that, propaganda. They wasnt better prepared then others, quite contrary, many times was less trained actualy. Their weaponry wasnt as good as same propaganda said and their tactics and combat abilities kinda sucks, leading to an amount of military losses bigger then Germany, US, UK, Japan, Romania, Italia, France, Polonia, Yugoslavia, Finland etc, combined.
And they won at the end with help of other different Allies, without that, in an one on one fight with Germany/Axis they would lose, the rate of their tanks and vechicles taken out would be bigger then those able to produce, and the human losses as well would became quickly unsustenable.
I mention again the weaknesses of the T-34, considered by many as the best tank of WW 2.
They (and Germans later, but i think in less extent) was the only ones, as far as i know, who used "death squads" behind their own troops, and shot or kill those who retreated, meaning that was quite many.
And sometimes they retreated not because was cowards or didnt know how to fight, but because of stupidity of their comanders who put them in impossible situations.

3 - another piece of propaganda. Stalin and his men know well before about German plans and about Barbarossa, yet the red army was still caught unprepared. This is either because they didnt bother to react to that, was over-confident in their capabilities, either they wasnt able to react properly.

If you put all this together the image (in my vision, again) is a Soviet Union eager to spread and conquer, in the tradition imposed there by Tatars, and in the same time paranoic and afraid of anyone around.
A Soviet Union who drived by above desires and feelings builded a huge army. But an army who was far from the abilities both their official propaganda and Suvorov try to depict them.
If someone might think they was able to conquer the world back then (1941) he is wrong.
Its enough to look at their losses and way of fighting during WW 2 (even when they was in offensive in 1943-1944), and they fight just on one front mostly (Far East was a joke compared with European Eastern Front).
They had the numbers, they had some guns, but didnt had the skill and the abilities for this.

Both Soviet/Russian and Suvorov propaganda try to cover or hide this facts, but from different perspectives.
Oficial one try to depict a peace loving SU who didnt thought to war and who was surprised by a brutal Nazis attack.
Suvorov try to depict it as a marvelous Army ready to take over the world, surprised by a desperate Nazis attack.

Both i think try to hide the real thing, meaning the USSR was an imperialst state who allied with Hitler to grab as much as possible in any direction, and that even if they knew that a German invasion is coming they wasnt able to fight back at first, because they wasnt actualy that marvelous and prepared.
Stalin was caught in middle of preparations, and red Army was kinda far from the invincible army they like to depict it.
Red Army wasnt for sure able to defeat alone the Axis, if the Allies wouldnt be involved, so the most successfull Stalin action was to suport Hitler and so make it fight with other European powers and with US, diverting the target from USSR to Nazis.
The USSR take over at the end of WW 2 of what was German sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe, countries in ruins after the war and after Nazi Germany was defeated by a coallition of countries.

I really doubt USSR would do better in 1941, and if Stalin planned that, he was out of reality

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on May 20, 2012 04:06 pm

... and add that informations to not be misunderstood: if the USSR would attacked Germany later, for example in spring 1942, I'm not saying that a victory would be achieved, but perhaps disposing of a superior technique in larger quantities it had a higher chance of getting a favorable result! It's simply absurd to assert that that army who was almost crushed in summer and autumn of 1941, was capable to attack and get a favorable result in july 1941! Impressive figures (like the ones presented by Suvorov/Rezun) however can not contradict obvious facts -the catastrophic defeats of summer-autumn 1941 of the mighty (for Rezun) red army! Speak of the superiority of Soviet arms, Suvorov f.i. praise the Sukhoi Su-2 "Ivanov" aeroplane who (I am no specialist in planes) is written was the best dive-bomber in 1941, information which is not confirmed by any other source I read (admit I read not so much about aircraft!)! Anyway Rezun said that in june 1941 there were about 800 Su-2 aeroplanes ready for combat in the airfields of western USSR, but I read that only about 200 Su-2 were in the units of the soviet air force in the western USSR! Probably other figures are as exaggerated as these ones in the Rezun books!

udar, adding veiled insults to your post does not add weight to the arguments. Let's not go down that path again. I have edited you post.

According to C. Bergstrom & A. Mikhailov Black Cross/Red Star vol. I, page 45, there were 75 Su-2 in service on 22 June 1941 and the airplane was guarded as a great secret. So secret, that during one their first missions against Iasi railway station, Su-2s of the 210 BBAP were bounced by several MiG-3s from the 55 IAP. St. Lt. Alexandr Pokryshkin got his first kill of the war that day, after shooting down one of the Su-2s because he wasn't familiar with the type.

As for the Su-2's effectiveness as a weapon, the fact that the Il-2 emerged as the main ground attack aircraft of the VVS in WW2 is suggestive enough.

Thanks Victor! One of my sources about the number of the Su-2 Ivanov aeroplanes is here -http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/museum/su2/ but obviously have no ideea how close or far from reality these numbers are!
Another proved incorrect information is the one concerning the Romanian army tanks -Suvorov says that in June 1941 armored Romanian troops endowment consists of only 60 Renault FT-17 tanks, the real situation is correctly described by Victor:

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on May 20, 2012 05:30 pm

Let's make an experiment, you answer to this questions and then we can see whether you still need further explanations :
-how many tanks did the USSR had / Germany had in 1935 ?
-how many tanks did the USSR had/ Germany had in 1939 ?
-how many tanks did the USSR had/ Germany had in 1941 ?

What you will find out, is that in both cases, a small percentage of tanks were added in 1940-1941 ( although in absolute numbers, the difference is staggering in russian favor ). Which means, by 1941, most tank crews had at least a nominal perioad of 2 years of training in peace conditions and partly in battle conditions.

As for structures, they always existed. Germany had 6 tank divisions in 1939. How many did it have in 1940 ? Or in 1941 ? They quadrupled the number in 2 years. By using your logic it would mean leadership and coordination should be awful.
Why it wasn't so ?

Because just like with the russian units, the no of tanks was more or less very similar, they simply split the number of tank and created more divisions. So at small unit level, regiment and lower, there was no change. If before the panzer division had 3 panzer regiments, the new ones had 2, our of every 2 divisions you created another one. Yes, the top level is new, but the foundations are solid.

Same case for the russians. The tanks were organized in regiments and brigades throughout their existance. In 1939 they were gathered in divisons, in 1940 in mechanized corps, than disbanded into divisions and brigades again. But at regiment level it didn't matter : today you were part of the 5th division in the 2nd mechanized corp, tomorrow, you're part of a brigade with a cavalry division. That cannot influence individual tank and small unit ( platoon /company/batallion ) level coordination.

The Wehrmacht changed more or less the unit structure at division level every single year throughout the war. You have the 1939 level infantry division which is different from the 1942 infantry division which is different from the 1944 infantry division. But if I look at the number of people under arms, the difference is much less pronounced, yet divisions increased 3x.

You might want to read about the war games on 1940, when the russians did all kinds of experiments with their mechanized formations, simulating breakthroughs. In one game, they crammed a full mechanized corp with 1000 tanks in an attack sector 12km wide IIRC ( I don't have the references at me, so quoting from memory ). The end result was that the mechanized corp blocked ( for a week ) and destroyed all the roads and nothing could pass behind it. It was the absolute in breakthrough superiority.

I find some informations on the USSR armor that could be found to the troops: 10.180 tanks in 1935, 21.100 tanks in 1939 and almost 25.900 tanks in 1941 (my source is http://www.teatrskazka.com/Raznoe/BiChSost...avVS_4_01.html). According to this source on june 21, 1941 they were equipping the troops around 1.030 T-34, 481 T-35 medium, 545 KV and 59 T-35 heavy tanks, 3.582 reconnaissance tanks T-37, T-38 and T-40, 8.747 T-26 (combined arms) light tanks, 580 BT-2, 1.688 BT-5, 5.263 BT-7 fast tanks, 1.278 specialized tanks (T-37, T-26, BT-2, etc.), 28 self-propelled artillery tanks, 2.558 T-27 tankettes, 268 tank-based ACs. As I suspected before the numbers are quite different from those provided by Suvorov who speak about 1.363 T-34 medium and 677 KV heavy tanks (I mention only so, just passing ) in his book The last Republic page 170! About the military structures who would have remained unchanged as you said, I know that in 1939 the basic structure of the tank units was the brigade, and in 1941 the regiment! In 1939 I don't know about the existence of tanks and mechanized divisions or mechanized corps (there were 4 tank corps but different in structure), in 1941 they could be found as component of most armies... therefore have been large scale changes, that affected the tanks units... even the older units which existed in 1939 as tank brigades (57 tank brigades in 1939 as I read, from which 8 in the existed tank corps)!
Suvorov/Rezun credibility is questionable when f.i. he's playing with numbers claiming that the 9th soviet Army (which included the 14th, 35th and 48th Infantry Corps, 2nd and 18th Mechanized Corps and the 2nd Cavalry Corps a.o.) should have included at a point 3.341 tanks, and together with other forces would have had 3.725 tanks -opposing these huge number (unreal, in fact 809 tanks on 22 june 1941 in the 9th Army) to the 60 FT-17 light tanks of the romanian army () ...so he said (see page 199 same book!).

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on May 23, 2012 11:02 pm

This is in response to

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=85912

PaulC, after all Glantz does not say there were 3,800 operational tanks. It is you who is saying it. I will quote you:

First is 3,800 out of 22,000 and then out of 14,000 and then out of 12,782. Which one is it?

Actually Glantz says that 29% of the older models (that is non KV and non T-34s) required capital maintenance and 44% lesser maintenance. So first you should subtract the number of KVs and T-34s from the total number and then start applying percentages. You are adding up these two percentages, which are not the same thing. Actually if you evaluate the 29% of the older models in the MCs, you get 2,782, relatively close to what Solonin is saying: 12,782 - 10,540 = 2,242.

Lesser maintenance could very well mean "quite operable". Maybe the optical system is broken, maybe the radio, maybe the fuel filter needs replacing etc. "Quite operable" doesn't say though that some of the tanks won't break down after 50 km of marching or after 100 or 200 km. Besides the examples already given on breakdowns, I would also add a report by. col. Ivanin, the chief of Western Front's Armored Directorate, from 5 August 1941, in which he states that the 11th, 13th, 14th, 17th and 20th MCs consisted exclusively of older models and had an average of only 75 to 100 motor hours remaining (until major overhauling most likely). The above mentioned MCs totaled 1,371 tanks, out of which 27 were new models. The low remaining resource of the tanks could qualify them as "quite operable", but in need of "lesser maintenance".


Tanks, like any piece of machinery, require technicians for maintenance and these did not seem to be in large supply in the MCs. This is not due to the fact that the technicians were hiding in forests far away from the unit, sitting on stockpiles of fuel, spare parts etc. as Rezun would like to paint it. The units lacked many of the properly trained specialists. And I am not talking only about technicians, many (in some cases the majority - the 37th TD for example) of the men had just been drafted in May 1941 and lacked the proper specialist skills required in such a complex combined arms unit. Drivers, logistics, engineers, staff officers etc. All these are required in modern warfare and the MCs lacked one or the other or all of them. Training specialists takes more time and exercise than training riflemen. The Red Army was in a process of massive expansion and new specialists required time to be formed to satisfy the new need for personnel.

Besides technicians they also lacked the spare parts they needed for small repairs and the means to tow damaged tanks from the battlefield, as mentioned by numerous post-action reports. In some cases they also lacked the foresight to prepare to deal with the numerous breakdowns. This was because they were far from being prepared for military action, especially against an enemy that was well trained and organized for it. You are trying to convey an image of massive stockpiles of men and equipment near the border, which were quickly overran and this is why the Soviet MCs fared so poorly. But the Soviet deployment shows many MCs out of reach of the initial German surprise attack. Those MCs fared as well as those directly on the border: very poorly.

Regarding the tanks, the T-26 and the BT series were older models compared to the T-34 and the KVs, which were part of a newer generation of tanks. This is why they were referred to as older tanks and, in their majority, they were older tanks.

The characteristics of the tanks aren't that important, as demonstrated quite well by the Germans during the entire war. It is how they are used and by whom. The tanks are part of a combined arms organization, which at the time the Soviets didn't master that well. It took a couple of years for them to get everything in working order. Had it not been for the war, the time could have been shorter, but no way they could have been ready in 2 weeks.

The issue of the engineers. The 160 corps and division sapper battalions had been separated from their parent units in February and March 1941 to work on the fortifications being erected on the new frontiers. These units used as workers and did not received any training as combat engineers and in supporting their parent units (see report by maj. gen. Vorobev, chief of Western Front's Engineers), as it would have been normal if the Red Army was preparing for attack in July 1941. To my knowledge, the Germans didn't concentrate all their divisional engineer battalions on the Soviet border several months before 22 June 1941. Also, they did not have fortifications on the border that would require such a concentration of Soviet engineers to clear them. The rush to

complete the Soviet fortifications on the new border was due to the 21 May 1941 NKO directive that mobilized and increased the number of fortified regions. The mobilization had to be completed by 1 July on the new border and by 1 October on the old border. This explains the sappers' deployment in the area.

The 9th Army's theoretical 3,341 tanks are ludicrous. The paper strength of one MC was 1,031 tanks and that of a cavalry corps of 128 light tanks. The 9th Army had 2 MCs (2nd and 18th) and one CC (2nd) = 2,190 theoretical tanks. Even if we add the supposed 27th MC, for whose inclusion in the 9th Army no document basis exists, it would have raised the total by 1,031 theoretical tanks = 3,221 theoretical tanks, which is still less than what Rezun claims. In reality, the two existing MCs had together 799 tanks of which only 10 KV-1s and 50 T-34s and the 2nd Cavalry Corps had no tanks. The 27th MC had on 22 June 1941 a total of 356 tanks, none of which were KV or T-34 (see D. Glantz, Colossus reborn, page 266) and was nowhere near Romania. Increasing the actual strength to the nominal one would have taken considerably more than 2 weeks.

In fact the mighty 9th Army had a lot of time at its disposal to prove its deadliness after the war began. The Romanian front remained stationary until early July, because the OKH didn't consider the terrain and the troops deployed to be adequate for a massive offensive. The 9th Army could have demonstrated its force by crossing the Prut and crushing the supposedly weak defense. Yet it didn't. It may not have been quite a walk in the park as Rezun or Pokryshkin thought.

You were the one using the % game to prove a point : that the mechanized units were in poor shape. You can't have it both ways.

Tanks break down all the time. Do you want to check the Panzer Division performance in each and every campaign regarding availability ? At every road march, dozens of vehicle were left behind ?

And what's with the "only 75-100 motor hours remaining " ? You make it sounds like it's a disaster. In fact, the most German units hardly had 100 motor hours. Yet they reached Moscow.

With 75 motor hours, the BTs would have easily reached Berlin.

The tanks were already there. Even in 1939 the soviets had around 20.000 tanks. Each of those tanks had a CREW. Was assigned a REPAIR workshop. How were the technicians missing ? The units were there, the repair shops were there. The mech corps might be new, but the platoons, companies, battalions of tanks were there since at least 2 years. How exactly were they suddenly missing on June 22 ? That's one of the propaganda myths that Solonim skillfully explains.
Same thing for the "lack" of tractors, vehicles, etc. I presented in another post how many vehicles, tractors, etc the Red Army had and was planned to requisition from the civilian industry.

Solonin's book had just been printed by Polirom. I suggest you go buy it, read it and see whether all this is suddenly explained.

In short : Solonin states that the USSR planned the invasion and was days away, if not hours from launching it. Lack of intelligence, intelligence failures and overconfidence meant the soviets did not take into account the German attack. They were doing all the preparations on their own schedules. Some units near the border were put on combat alert 24-48 hours before the invasion because they commander took direct notice of the activity on the German side.
When the attack begin, the Red Army crumbled. Suvorov says it was because of the offensive deployment, losing the supplies and the air force destroyed.
Solonin disagrees : he considers that although the deployment was offensive minded, the forward pincers should have sliced through the German lines and cut the attacking forces from their rear. That's what they attempted through the counterattacks in late June. Also, according to Solonim, the German attacks did little to dent the soviet power. There were enough tanks, guns, aircraft, to not only stop the Wehrmacht, but to inflict massive damage to it. This did not happen.

All the counterattacks failed because the Red Army was disintegrating. An army made by citizens who hated the soviets for the destruction of their villages, taking their land, the terror, etc. Once the Germans attack, the fear disappeared : the first to run were the NKVD, soldiers shot their officers and commissars, abandoned equipment and attempted to flee from the fighting. In the first month alone, 7 million rifles were lost ( it's one thing to abandon a broken KV1, but the Mosint rifle ? ) The local population attacked the soviet forces in western Ucraine and the soviet representatives. Everybody was running, the commands especially. Lt-majors were left in charge to lead division size units. Officers and Marshalls ( like Kulik ) ripped their officer insignia and threw it away, dressed in civilian clothes and started runnign.

In attack, like Poland, Finland, Japan it was fine. The Makarov revolver was pointed at the soldier/officer's head by the rear NKVD. But as always, the repression troops are the first to run when confronted by a foreign, well armed and determined enemy. It's one thing to shoot your own troops to instill fear, another thing fighting the Wehrmacht.

The T26s and BT series weren't fighting T34s and KVs. So being older compared to the later is utterly irrelevant.

Comparing them to what the Wehrmacht had, however, fails to show any obsolescence.

Of course. At the beginning they were old and flammable, without communications and inferior weapons. Now all this doesn't matter. All the technical advantages swept aside with a smiling phrase.

It is more than doubtful that you can infer from the early days of the war about the combat performance of the mechanized corps had they been on the offensive. Not only this, but that's a logical error : combat performance after June 22 bears no connection to the existence of an attack prepared by the SU on Germany and its allies.

The SU did prepare for years for attack, like Hitler said to Mannerheim, "It wasn't nothing but a country of slaves working for the sole purpose of producing armaments to enslave Europe ". And that is the frank reality.

By summer 1941, the SU amassed the largest force known to mankind on Germany' and Romania's Eastern borders. And they were days from releasing their attack aimed at occupying Europe and enlarging the the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics ( the name itself doesn't specify any territorial limits ).

The attack could have ended with soviet cavalry taking a bath on the Cote d'Azur or it might have been the blunder of the millennium, with the Red Army being defeated in Eastern Poland, Galitia and Moldova. We can only speculate.

But this cannot be backtracked to they couldn't have prepared to attack because they fought so poorly in the first months.

So they were building a fortified line that the Germans didn't even notice and the Red Army troops did not manned. What was the purpose then ? You do realize the German battle reports DO NOT MENTION resistance on the Molotov line. And a half finished bunker is better than a foxhole, don't you agree ?

You say it's ludicrous and by your own calculations you ended up with 3221 tanks, less than 4% difference to what Suvorov said. Secondly, again, you're comparing status on June 22. Do I need to mention once again the Red Army deployment was meant to be done between July 1st and July 10 ?

Even assuming the 799 tanks, out of which "only 10KVs and 50 T34s" ( I'm again forced to question the words you use intentionally ), what could stop them ? How could an R2/35 destroy a KV1 ?

The 100 something operational R2, R35s ? Leaving aside the 739 "other" soviet tanks, I'd rather have only the 60 KV1s and T34s than 100 iron coffins of the RO Army. Wouldn't you agree ?

Could it attack all by itself ? Around Lvov at the time, the massive soviet forces in the protuberance were melting like ice under than sun under the confusion, massive desertion, conflicting orders and last , German attacks . The ucrainian staffed infantry divisions threw their weapons and fraternized with the Germans through the liberation movements. Last, having the centre front falling apart, the southern front started to pull back, not to be encircled. A fate which it failed to avoid.

This post has been edited by PaulC on May 28, 2012 11:03 am

What a hypocrisy
Hitler was going to make a great sacrifice and attack Soviet Union first, to save Europe from enslavement. Sound like a martyr to me

You do realize he wrote those books during the 1980s when the Red Army official history said they had 1861 tanks om June 22 ?

Suvorov said 1861 tanks, including 1225 T34s and 636 KVs IIRC as of June 1. The 1225 figure I've seen before as the no of T34s manufactured to date.

You mention " 1.030 T-34, 481 T-35 medium". What is 481 T-35 medium tanks ?

I know of the 59 T35 heavy tanks, but not the 481 medium tanks.

61 tank divisions were ordered to be created on August 19 1939. Already by June 22 1941, soviet tank division number exceeded 100.

The large scale changes were at high level unit size. How could that influence small unit training, performance and cohesion ?

You do realize he's doing an theoretical exercise assuming full paper strength ? If not, you're in a grave logical error. If you do understand it, than why are you asking about it ?

3 mechanized corps + 1 cavalry corp + independent brigades = ~3500 tanks if not more.

And what importance, just like I asked Viktor, has June 22 ? This date meant nothing in the soviet deployment plan which was supposed to be finished July 10 the latest. How many tanks the 9th would have had on July 6th we can only guess, but I would say over 1200 for sure.

What could stop them ? The 100 something FT17s, R2s and R35s ? Are you seriously wanting to state that the Romanian armor would be anything more than a nuissance ?

Btw, how many training hours did the Romanian crews had ? Their gunners did practice with live ammo ? Did they have radios in all tanks ? Did they have enough maintenance technicians ? Or tractors ? Or spare parts ? Or trucks ? Enough ammunition for the huge 37mm short barrel guns ? How was the unit cohesion ? Was it old or newly created ? Were they fully staffed with experienced officers ?

This isn't meant to be answered, pardon the pun..

What a hypocrisy
Hitler was going to make a great sacrifice and attack Soviet Union first, to save Europe from enslavement. Sound like a martyr to me

When lacking arguments to refute historical facts, what else is left but to go for the last line defense : " This would exculpate the nazis ! " as if historical truth can be negated in order not to offend the weak minded.

And the logic is sublime : if Stalin wanted to occupy Europe and Hitler prevented this, he will be compensated for all or at least part of his crimes. We can't allow that !

This stupidity says more about the originator of the idea than about the historical and moral implications of the problem. Nobody, but you Sir, had the "martyr" theme around here. The rest , myself included, are interested fully or partially in getting the historical truth without political implications that can be derived from it. If Hitler was a monster, it doesn't mean Stalin was Mother Teresa and the other way round.
Deal with it.

This post has been edited by PaulC on May 28, 2012 12:00 pm