Suvorov books, ww-2

A person that claims "BTs driving to Bucharest in 6 hours in 1941" should not give "get real" advices.

Conditions don't have to be worse than in Finland or the... Arctic circle (seriously?) for military planners to be weary of winter.

Secondly, this isn't about being allergic to snow but about the fact that winter conditions actually affect units on the ground, slowing their advance and straining their logistics system. Russian equipment is not immune to cold weather.

However, the point is not that the Soviets wouldn't advance, but that they would have serious problems as winter weather catches them in the mountainous regions of Eastern Europe.

And just for fun:

Volgograd
Average low: November: -2.5C; December: -7.6C; January: -9.2C; February: -9.9C;
Record low: November -21.7C; December: -29.5C; January: -32.6C; February: -32.1C

Bucharest
Average low: November: 1.6C; December: -2.6C; January: -5.5C; February: -3.3C
Record low: November: -14C; December: -23C; January: -32C; February: -26C

Iasi
Average low: November: 1C; December: -4C; January: -7C; February: -5C;
Record low: January: -34.6C

Also, you have to take into account that if the winter is severe in Russia, Arctic/Russian cold fronts will make their way to Romania too, bringing severe cold and a lot of snow.

Yes, we can ask him, and i will see if i find the book again. But i am very sure i am right

Ofcourse, lets take with a grain of salt what really happened and lets blindly believe what Suvorov believe it might happen

What are you talking about? What division was crushed in Caucasus? 2-nd division pushed its way thru Soviet lines and conquered the furthest point reached by Axis on Russian front. 3-rd division i think is the one who captured in a single battle over 10,000 Soviet soldiers, including an entire rifle division. I think you are a bit clueless about how those Mountain Division did there or in WW 2 in general, against any enemy they fight against in mountaneus areas. So yes, i am pretty sure our 4 brigades will crush quickly those 3 soviet mountain divisions

And yes, i said i agree the soviets might conquer large parts of Moldova, what i said is that they wouldnt be able to control the mountain areas (which, btw, are more then 30% of the country teritory. And controling those we'll be able to counter-attack from there or bring troops from Transilvania, or retreat gradually there and so on.

I dont think soviets will just blindly throw their aircrafts in the meat grinder. I am sure that they will be much carefull after first loses and try to obtain just local superiority on some parts of the battlefield.
Soviet Air Force wasnt known for its realisation as much as other branches. Just from 1943 on they start to dominate somehow on eastern front, and just because Germans was attracted by Allies in other areas. Gosh, even our air force was attracted in other areas by Allies (like attacks against Ploiesti)

That was enough for Soviets to not try that anymore (this related with the air battles too, so to see how they acted in front of significant losses). And i dont say we was able to go out and sunk all their ships in an open battle in the midle of the Black Sea, i said they wouldnt be able to do a landing from the sea, to land troops in Dobrogea.

And about Crimeea, maybe you heard about the evacuation of Crimeea by Romanian Navy, under the nose of Soviet Navy.

Those Soviets losses was because they was unprepared, and their equipment was obviously weaker compared with 1943 one. Their tactics was weaker, the Allied help wasnt anywhere. Soviet Army in 1945 had some 11 million soldiers if i remember correct, better tanks, more experience and win just with Allies big help and managed to ocupy just what was German sphere of influence and occupied teritories in eastern Europe, and even that not entirely.

I am really not sure they would do better at all in 1941

No, combined arms playied the big role, and tanks was a part of it, yes. Tanks cant go without infantry, they need air support, they need to pass over fortified lines or mountains passes and so on. You know, war isnt made always in huge open stepes, where they can use their huge numerical superiority

Except T-34 and KV which was found in small numbers in 1941 and probably used against German Army, the others was at the level of R-2 and R-35

Lack of good or many AT weapons reffer to situation at Stalingrad for ex., vs T-34 and KV tanks (or IS tanks later). Against T-26 or BT-5 would be enough any 30 mm gun, or 37mm, or 40 mm, even AT rifles. Not to mention land mines, Molotov cocktails, or even AT grenades (for urban battles, let alone FNG fortified line)

Yes, that would, in large open stepes, less in urban fights, in mountains or against fortified defense work

Well, thats Suvorov hypothesis. I am really not sure they will be able to do that in reality, even if they was ready for that in 1941, which i doubt very much

Well, considering that Stalin gived the highest ever medal, order Victoria, to king Michael, after 23 August 1944, on the considerend that shortened the WW 2 with at least 6 months (and probably saved the lives of some 1 million soviet soldiers), and the soviet army was much better equiped and have much experience in 1944 then in 1941, i think their supposed superiority in 1941 is just in your mind, or Rezun mind.

Yes, they would be able to conquer much of the country, but probably that will took many months and lots of troops, with huge losses.

again, i think you are a bit clueless about what you are talking.
-Odessa was conquered by our troops, soviet didnt resisted the pressure and run back from the city (unlike Leningrad for ex when they stay and fight)
-Stalingrad, completely different then FNG line lets say. And there our troops stay and fight and die, even if you are unaware of this, i suppose it will make you good to read some other books too, not just propagandistic ones made by soviets (or even Germans).
In Caucas and Crimeea our mountain troops whipped the floor with Soviets, for which they hate them passionately after the war, see what happened with their comanders, and how they was disbanded at some point
-before Iasi-Chisinau was Targu Frumos, which soviets usually avoid to talk about.
And see again what medal gived Stalin to king Michael back then, and why. Just to make you an idea

And about some of our troops cracking and run, well, this happened to all participants in WW 2. Remember how Germans reached Moscow, even us going up in Caucasus?
You think that was because soviets didnt cracked and run too alot? And they did that in such quantities that was needed "death squads" behind their lines, to keep them on the front line (germans did the same at some point so they wasnt spared either by such problems).
Others simply surendered, in number of millions. Other died in number of millions, many millions in both cases.
I really dont think they was better then our troops in regard of morale, combat abilities and even training.
It was just german stupid mistales with their idiotic "arian race" believes and "superman" vs "subhumans" who pushed many people on soviet side, and the allied help to make the USSR win at the end

This post has been edited by udar on May 31, 2012 08:56 am

Yes, that would allow them to conquer much of Moldova west of Prut. When they get to the mountains, or fortified (even not fully ready) FNG line, or urban battles like in Bucharest let say, i really doubt thing will go so well as in Suvorov fantasies

Those soviet tanks was destroyied in huge quantities during Barbarossa, and i really doubt they lost their armour or guns or mobility because they was taken by surprise (say Rezun, even if everyone agree that Stalin was warned and knew even the date of German invasion)
They had a thin armour, smaller guns, no radios, so no coordination among tanks (same problem as T-34/75 later)

They lack enough AT guns to fight T-34 and KV tanks, not obsolete T-26 or BT

Ofcourse, lets erase a big part of reality that didnt fit in our hypothesis, or come out with imaginary reasons to cover the weaknesses, as Suvorov did

Well, more like a "palace coup" done by King Michael against Marshall Antonescu. You know, Stalin was so happy with that that even give the Order Pobeda/Victory to king Michael for that (and that the rarest medal ever, i think just Eisenhower and Montgomery, Stalin himself, Jukov and couple others get one). Thats how Soviets did in 1944, i wouldnt call it quite a miracle however

Well, Allies in 1941 wouldnt be able to help SU, and SU wasnt ready for any Europe inavsion in 1941. Thats just Suvorov trying to cover up the fail of red army during Barbarossa. Its called propaganda, "maskirova" etc.

Somehow Soviet ended the war at Berlin, after Allies gradualy wear down the Nazi industry and divert more and more troops from eastern front to western or souther front.

In 1943 if i am not mistake, the German troops from eastern front, from 75 % of total german troops fall to just 60 %, same year german industry lost 10% of its capacities because of Allies bombardments, and in 1944 lost 40%. Soviets on the other side needed to fight just on one front, against Axis. Gosh, even our Air Force was forced to fight on both fronts, on eastern front and back home against Allies aircrafts (see Ploiesti raids)

In the same time thru Lend Lease Soviets get almost 13,000 armoured vechicles, many of them tanks, tens of thousands, if not more then hundred of thousands trucks and locomotives for trains, huge amounts of equipment, from boots to clothes, food, oil, munition, explosives, aircrafts, radios etc. etc..

Now, imagine that Germany declared war to US in december 1941, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Imagine then that SU attack Germany in july 1941.
This mean Germany will not declare war to US, Japan will probably attack SU in far east, and not the US at Pearl Harbour, so the Lend Lease will not come anymore (as the US will not be an Allied of USSR). And the bombing of German industry will not come either, or will be much small (done mostly by Brits, without anywhere near such effect as it was in combination with Americans)
US will probably not enter in war, as UK will not be too much under threat now, with Germany fighting will all forces in east against USSR, and Japan didnt attack them.
Even more, they will probably saw the soviets as a potential enemy, especially after they will appear as agressors in Europe, there was lots of enemies of soviets in America, remember just General Patton, but he wasnt alone.

This post has been edited by udar on May 31, 2012 09:11 am

Maybe you should read history books instead of fiction ( beletristica ). If you're under the impression our troops managed anything more seldom success you're gravely mistaken.
The invasion started on July 2nd and already by July 11th, the OKH considered Romanian troops as becoming fragile. And that against running soviets !
Local successes and bravery by individual units and men were accomplished, but we were never seen as reliable either by the germans or by the russians.
That's because :
-poor equipment
-lack of training, cohesion, antique relations between officers and soldiers
-low morale, lacking motivation.

Of course, in our own history pigs could always fly, from Mircea the Elder to Tatra Mountains. The moment you will be able to rid yourself of cheap national bravado and look with a critical eye at our role and influence on the events, we can talk.

Maybe you should read what the veterans say about russian resistance and how skillfull they were. What happened with the 3rd mountain division at the end of september ?

Arm chair fantasies.

That was the only way they knew how to fight. Was the RRAF capable of accepting the mud fight ?

Why don't you read about Wehrmacht soldiers memoirs to see what they say about the Jabos on the Eastern Front. Or the engagement rules received by the Luftwaffe, how to fight the VVS.

Why not ? With what could we have stopped them, 5-6 guns ?

Do you want me to list you the ships sunk and how many thousands drowned from Crimeea ?
Let's do an exercise : you post for Odessa, russian retreat, and I post for Crimea. Deal ?

So the active Red Army was unprepared after 2 year peace training, but the 40 year old reservists of 1943 were prepared after being given a rifle, told " It fires at that end " and sent to battle. The quality of the men in the Red Army decreased drastically during the war, just like the Wehrmacht.

The equipment wasn't weaker at all, in 1941 they had clear advantage in tanks ( 7 to 1 ) , both numbers and quality. In 1943, they had small advantage in numbers ( 2 to 1 ) , none in quality .

You have everything wrong.

Thanks for the nice story. What's your point ? I already disproved your false claim they lacked infantry for the tanks by showing the combined arms ratio.

At Stalingrad, most of the tanks were T60 and T70 which were little better than the T26. And according to you, the Germans should have lost all their tanks in 1939/1940 since they weren't any better armored than the BTs. Yet they didn't . I wonder why ?

Simple logic dictates infantry + tanks > infantry without tanks.

It's not the Suvorov hypothesis, just ignorance from your side. He wrote his main book before any reference to soviet plans was available. After the fall of the soviet Union, variants of the operational plans and memorandums from 1940 and 1941 pointed to an attack plan on Germany and its allies. And those were first revealed by a new generation of young historian in the '90s , proving what Suvorov supposed 10 years earlier.

What a joke of an argument. Stalin giving Michael a medal ! As for the rest, wake me up when you're able to do a proper comparison.

Are you joking ? We didn't conquer Odessa. The soviets evacuated it since Odessa wasn't strategically important, Crimea was. We have real data on soviet considerations and orders regarding Odessa.

We were nowhere near conquering it when the evacuation happened, we just woke up in the morning seeing the Russians retreat.

There are memos from our general to Antonescu pointing out how exhausted our forces were and how they couldn't solve the impasse, attack after attack being bogged down in front of the russian defenses.

Why do you continuously mention FNG which was completely irrelevant in ww2 ? It wasn't considered by any party involved. What's the fetish with it ? SF scenarios ?

At Stalingrad we failed due to a number of reasons and any form of organised resistance disappeared turning into a rout.

Oh yes, that's why we conquered the Caucas, oh wait..

A succesfull defense operation in which we played no part whatsoever. Your point is ?

Laughing.

They were motivated and far better armed. The rest I agree.

This post has been edited by PaulC on May 31, 2012 11:40 am

Have you heard of the concept of deep operations ? By the time they conquered Moldova ( maybe M+2-3 ), there would have been no resistance elsewhere since there weren't any troops left ! The 3rd Ro and 11th German army are surrounded in the Iasi pocket, the 4th is routed in southern Moldova.
Being infantry we couldn't keep up with soviet motorized formations. So once they penetrated the line at the maximum concentration points it was all over. Without mobile reserves ( which we didn't have, key for successful defense ) the disaster was a matter of days.

They weren't destroyed. They were abandoned or destroyed by their own troops in huge numbers in the hasty rout towards the East.

Compared to what ?

Compared to what ?

1 in 3 had a radio or more.

False. Every platoon comander had a radio, all T28 tanks had radios, all KV tanks had radios.
At worst, russian tanks acted in groups of 3. One in the lead and 2 support. Which I'm not sure it's really a bad idea. It's not like the German tanks acted on their own individually.

AT guns cannot stop tanks at a breakthrough point, even if theoretically they should be able to destroy them. When 200-300 tanks attack the line held by an infantry battalion, the defense is broken. And AT guns are immobile compared to tanks.

If you want to discuss about what happened after, you need to read some Butoiul si Cercurile written by Solonin and printed by Polirom.

By 1944 we hardly played a role in the fight on the eastern front. And we cracked again, just to enjoy 50 years of red paradise, results of which will be felt even 50 years from now.

I'm not talking about Germany, but the Soviet Union. They fought and won the war with a fraction of what they had in July 1941. So why weren't they able to attack when the Soviet Union enjoyed the greatest superiority ever ?

They were very good. Soviet tankers instead of being sent to penal battalions for infractions like raping liberated soviet women were sent to fight on the Shermans.

Yes, all very true. But do you know that this help started flowing to the Soviet Union since the late '30s ? In june 1941 it simply accelerated the pace.

coming from a Suvorov fan this is hilarious

Aha, they was running in front of us, but our performance was poor, i get it . Thats very cool. Then Germans insisted to keep going anyway, because they kinda need some help.
You should see how they saw the "subhuman" russians back then, especially after your super army super equiped was crumbling all over.

And this is precisely how russians was too, if not worse:

-lack of training, cohesion, antique relations between officers and soldiers
-low morale

They just happen to have more number and more guns

Sure buddy, sure, if this it makes you sleep better at night
Instead fairytales from others propaganda (russians in this case) are the ultimate truth
I understand Suvorov that he try to cover up somehow the big failure that was red army in 1941, but i am not sure about you, in which category you fit

Trust me, i read for sure more then you, and i heard stories too to make an idea. Especially about how did those mountains troops

good God, compared with what? Rezun fairytales, your wishfull thinking, or what?

Duh, no, they will surender when they will see the first "Rata" buzzing over the sky
They was able to fight just against American airplanes, is a known fact

I dont know why but i have the impression you talk about late war, not the early period. And you know what changed in the second part of the war, and what player entered the game? I suppose not, or if Rezun didnt say you dont take anything else in consideration

Well, who knows, they was scared enough to not try again after that failed attempt

Are you for real, really now? Are you able to compare the navies involved and the situations? Aparently not. Sorry to say, but when you get off those "horses glasses" you wear with Suvorov inscripted all over them and try to look at the bigger picture maybe we can have a more serious or open talk

Yes, they was excellent prepared, they tormented themselves to win in Finland and suffered huge losses in front of Axis assault.
They had the number advantage, but didnt had the training and the abilities to use that, not even the quality of tanks in some regards.

In 1943 they had much better tanks bigger numbers, more experience and Allies kicking in (North Africa, Sicily, bombings in Ploiesti and all over Germany).
And they still suffered huge amounts of losses

The point is that soviet tanks would count zero in mountains, they will need to use just infantry there, and for that kind of terrain we was much better prepared and as the history of clashes betwen our mountain troops and the enemies will kinda badly beat them there.

There was a lot of T-34 and even KV too, not sure what T-60 you talk about.
Germans did it better because of their superior tactic and organization, which was much better then the soviet one

Simple logic dictate as well that tanks cant go in mountains and forests, and superior trained and prepared infantry will defeat the enemy in such areas

Suvorov writed in 1990 and just depicted a big bad USSR bear because USSR just losted the cold war and was about to disintegrate, so he tried to make it look stronger. Simply "maskirova" from Russians
And to cover the problems of red army in 1941.

You make a good comparation, even if you dont realize it. You need to wake up from your fairytale dream with super strong red army able to conquer whole Europe in few weeks and Romania in couple days, with its flying tanks and super trained troops.

Its worthless to discuss with you about reasons of which Stalin gived that decoration to Michael, it seem you are not able to grasp anything outside Suvorovian logic

Sure, yeah, i heard that fantasy few times before. I mean, the main port of Soviet navy is not strategically important, but Leningrad, in the much less important front and region is.
The cold facts for you and soviets was that they wasnt able to stand the pressure, so they evacuated their main port. If they keep that, they would be able to threat all the time the back of the front from there, as they had the superior navy in Black Sea, able to bring reinforcements there. Better even that those send over Ladoga lake to Leningrad, the way less strategically important city which they dont evacuate, let see

I dont know, maybe it had something to do with Stalin, Pobeda order and king Michael shortening the war with 6 months at least, acording to Stavka

Oh wait, you dont know how they fight there, i forgot

That we participated too, and the soviet troops involved was at least as strong with those from 1941, just much better equiped

Better armed, yes, more motivated then our troops defending the country no (we not talk here about Stalingrad but about Bucharest)

This post has been edited by udar on May 31, 2012 02:16 pm

Arm chair general fantasies, to quote someone here

Sure, why to fight back with those excelent (acording to Rezun and you) tanks, lets run and leave them to the enemy, or better destroy them to not bother the enemy to much.

Compared with R-35 or R-2
And I doubt that was the real ratio for radios. And seeing the total tank losses of red army, on the entire war period, i doubt they improved much as tactics

Again, seing the losses of soviet tanks during the entire war didnt show much confidence in their tactics or fighting abilities

Again, you talk about large open stepes. Imagine another scenario, with rivers to pas over, land mine fields, trenches, bunkers, buildings, mountain passes and so on.

I am not sure what we argued here, but i will see if i find that book

Everyone around cracked back then, most of them (except Germans) with less fighting then us. Gosh, USSR would had crached without Allies support.

What are you talking about? Soviet army ended the war with some 11 milions soldiers under arms, this is a fraction of what they had in 1941? Are you realise what was their tank production and what type of tanks they had in 1944 compared with 1941? Airplanes, Allied support?

Some said they like them, but i assume after the start of cold war nobody dared to say that anymore in USSR. Anyway, without those tanks and without Allied involvement (meaning in a just USSR vs Axis fight) soviets would had lost much tanks that they would be able to produce, even so it was a quite close shot for them

Because I passed the stage of embarrassment that I have by reading the categorical but ridiculous statements of PaulC, and realizing (it's just a guess!) that the moderators have a feeling of embarrassment by reading some (not all!) posts (especially Paul's!) I say however that the facts (events occurring in that period) should be taken more into consideration! An alternative history is (was and will be) always interesting and attractive, but when it removes herself a lot from the real events it becomes a fable or worse a aberrancy! I say this without any intent to offend (not even PaulC!) but because I feel as such! I do not say it being upset, but with a slight consternation! Sorry that I speak off-topic, but I think it needed to be said!

PaulC, I'm interested in your sources for the following statements:

and

What is M+2-3?

or this

quod erat demonstrandum... at such type of approach words are useless! Whopping operational-strategic thinking, unrelated to the reality of combat actions on the Basarabian front near the date of the alleged Soviet attack (july 1941)!

To pick one thing that renders the whole theory of a Soviet attack days away from the launch of Barbarossa unfeasible, is that not a single map of operations was found by Germans from the battlefield near the border when they should have found many of them. And they would spare no time to make them publicly as they suited their propaganda perfectly.

Please try to limit the number of quotes in a post and try to decrease the aggressiveness of the tone. Should this continue in the same, I suppose a temporary lock is the only solution to calm down the spirits.

According to D. Glantz, Colossus Reborn, page 272:
- 5th Tank Army on 19 November 1942: 70 KV, 135 T-34, 175 T-70 (46%)
- 4th Tank Corps om 19 November: 29 KV, 57 T-34, 57 T-70 (40%)
- 1st, 2nd and 3rd Guards Tank Regiment on 19 November: 56 KV (0%)

I could not find the composition for the 16th Tank Corps, the 4th Mechanized Corps, the 13th Tank Corps, the 4th Tank Corps or the 90th Tank Brigade. However, the theoretical OoB of Soviet armored units of the period called for a majority of medium tanks in in the units as opposed to light tanks and it is unlikely that the light tanks, such as the T-60 or T-70, constituted the majority of the tank and mechanized corps in Operation Uranus.

I just bought and read this book Mark Solonin Butoiul si cercurile

http://www.polirom.ro/catalog/ebook/butoiu...a-patriei-4586/

Very interesting info about German and Soviet Tanks (as units and as individual performance) I recommend it!

Anyway, his point of view looks pretty close to Suvorov, but with important differences!