Red Army myths

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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"

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?

This post has been edited by udar on April 26, 2012 03:25 pm

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 27, 2012 05:17 am

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?

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.

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?

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.

This post has been edited by dragos on April 27, 2012 07:29 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.

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.

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!

Was it? Did it have radio equipment?

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!