Soviets, Nazis, etc

[M. Porcius Cato]

You underestimate the quality of the Soviet Army, especially circa '43 and after. By that time the 'not one step back' policy was replaced by a general staff overseen by Stalin but whose operational decisions were generally left to the generals unlike the German high command. Most of the horror stories of Soviet armed forces being poorly equipped were limited to the first year and a half of the war. By '43 the Soviets production lines were pushing out more quantity and a decent amount of quality such as numerous T-34 varients.

 

A West Point study showed that 75-80% of the German army (and a majority of their best units) were devoted to the Eastern front at all times. You can quibble about lend-lease and a second front but the fact is the Soviets took on the bulk of the German army and beat them.

 

Yes, the Germans failed to defeat the Soviets, but is that testimony to Soviet strength, Nazi incompetence, or both?

 

When Stalin invaded tiny Finland immediately after the outbreak of WWII, the Soviets had an overwhelming advantage in manpower (4:1), tanks (100:1), and aircraft (30:1), yet Finland's losses were ultimately fairly minor--even after the Soviets again invaded in 1944, when it then had a four million man army and had benefitted for years from lend-lease. While receiving no such aid themselvs, the Finns successfully resisted Soviet aggression throughout this period, and democratic Finland endured and maintained its independent govenment.

 

I mention this episode because it nicely illustrates my original point: the Soviets were not an unstoppable superpower; they acquired and maintained almost their entire empire due to Western support. The flailing Soviet government was initially saved thanks to food shipments by Hoover and other Western nations prior to WWII, then by Roosevelt's lend-lease during WWII, then by the oil capacity built by Armand Hammer after WWII, plus automobile factories set up by American Henry Ford, hydroelectric dams built by American Hugh Cooper, steel companies by American Arthur McKee, ball bearing factories by the Swedes, etc. Some of these developments are worth mentioning in particular because I personally saw them included in the Pavillion of Soviet Economic Achievement in 1987 Moscow, with no mention of their Western sources. Indeed, today one still hears the myth that Stalin's communist policies successfully industrialized Russia, with no mention of just how much of its industrial capacity was a free gift from the West. And that's to say nothing of how much of Eastern Europe they ripped up and brought back with them to starving, poor, backward communist Russia.

 

No matter how well the Soviets (and, let's face it, the winter) put a stop to Operation Barbarossa, to the extent that the Soviets managed to appear a real threat to the democratic West, it was BECAUSE of the democratic West. In my view, author Werner Keller put it best in the title of his book, East Minus West Equals Zero.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I'm learning a lot in this thread!

 

"...disasterous considering most men had barely a clip of ammo for each battle."

 

 

-- This was only true for the early part of the war.

 

But that's just it- it was the same situation that the Russians were in during WWI!

 

You underestimate the quality of the Soviet Army, especially circa '43 and after.

 

I was mostly talking about early war, but I know the Reds were formidable after the war. Still, in a ground war I think Americans would win- but not by much. We didn't have the "Win at all costs, no matter how many die" policy, therefore I believe the Red Army was a giant Pyrrhus case. Order 227 isn't the greatest way to win.

 

Where is this thread going?

 

I'm mostly in RE to Ramses' post.

[Rameses the Great]

No one should forget the Nazi's strength. Had it not been for them beeing severely outnumbered and confined in the center of Europe they could have been the victors. For a nation that practically took on all the world powers and fought to the bitter end, killing a lot of their enemies along the way is amazing. The sense of nationalism and organization they were able to instill in their army and nation was more than just impressive.

 

The Soviets were completely the opposite. Depriving a lot of the freedom and taking away the church from them did demoralize a lot of them. Had it not been for the will of the Russians to defened their homeland, rather than their sub par organization and nationalism they would not have held out at Stalingrad.

 

The Nazi Regime was more impressive in my opinion. I saw the method of the Soviets, sorry MPC, rather pathetic. In terms of productivity and execution the Soviets were just a mass of people throwing themselves in a fray of killing until the Nazis exhausted their troops and weaponry. I do not give the credit to the Soviets at all rather than the Russian mentality.

 

As the saying goes, 'will beats skill.'

[Virgil61]

Yes, the Germans failed to defeat the Soviets, but is that testimony to Soviet strength, Nazi incompetence, or both?

 

I'd reword it to say early losses were a testament to Soviet incompetence and Nazi advatanges in combined arms at tactical through operational levels, better battle staffs, and so on. Poor strategic decisions (or incompetence) at the strategic level changed those variables considerably.

 

When Stalin invaded tiny Finland immediately after the outbreak of WWII, the Soviets had an overwhelming advantage in manpower (4:1), tanks (100:1), and aircraft (30:1), yet Finland's losses were ultimately fairly minor--even after the Soviets again invaded in 1944, when it then had a four million man army and had benefitted for years from lend-lease.

 

Comparing the incompetently led Soviet army in '39 to later in the war is about as fair as comparing the American army which was humiliated in the Kasserine pass with the same army two years later (not for nothing did the Brits originally call the US Army 'our Italians'). Both had improved vastly. I'm not sure that the '44 war w/Finland is indicative of anything considering the massive numbers in the struggle engaged by the Germans and Soviets further south. By that time both Kursk and Stalingrad as well as dozens of lesser engagements were won by Soviet forces.

 

While receiving no such aid themselvs, the Finns successfully resisted Soviet aggression throughout this period, and democratic Finland endured and maintained its independent govenment.

 

The Finns in '39 were a damn good army, well led and equipped to a large extent by '41 by Germany. In '44 German units were interlaced with Finnish ones and 'aid' included anti-tank weapons including the deadly panzerfaust useful in anti-armor warfare.

 

I mention this episode because it nicely illustrates my original point: the Soviets were not an unstoppable superpower; they acquired and maintained almost their entire empire due to Western support. The flailing Soviet government was initially saved thanks to food shipments by Hoover and other Western nations prior to WWII, then by Roosevelt's lend-lease during WWII, then by the oil capacity built by Armand Hammer after WWII, plus automobile factories set up by American Henry Ford, hydroelectric dams built by American Hugh Cooper, steel companies by American Arthur McKee, ball bearing factories by the Swedes, etc. Some of these developments are worth mentioning in particular because I personally saw them included in the Pavillion of Soviet Economic Achievement in 1987 Moscow, with no mention of their Western sources.

 

No one should deny Western aid and no one says the Soviets were an unstoppable superpower. But it was their backbone, their tanks, their artillery and their soldiers that tackled the majority of the German army--never less than 75%.

 

No matter how well the Soviets (and, let's face it, the winter) put a stop to Operation Barbarossa, to the extent that the Soviets managed to appear a real threat to the democratic West, it was BECAUSE of the democratic West. In my view, author Werner Keller put it best in the title of his book, East Minus West Equals Zero.

 

Re the winter, as an infantry instructer told us once; "If you're cold, hungry and tired, so is the enemy".

 

The Red Army absorbed losses that the West never faced. It's tactics, it's successful tank models, development of mech warfare, development of an officer corps, artillery, tank destroyers, et al were--with exceptions--indigenous events. Neither does lend-lease or NKVD punishment battalions explain the patriotic fervor, cynically promoted by Stalin, which led to the defense of Leningrad or the victories at Stalingrad, Kursk, Berlin, et al. The allies never faced the cream of the German army in quality or quantity close to the Soviets.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm happy to concede that the Russians killed a large number of Nazis, and I'd not underestimate the resolve of the Russian people to survive--not on behalf of Stalin but in spite of him. In that, all your points are well-taken, Virgil.

 

My original point was that the Soviet empire has been made out to be some great superpower and rival of the West, like some Carthage to our (NATO) Rome. This is the point I wish to dispute, not whether the Red Army did a fine job of standing up to the Nazis.

 

The view that the Soviets were a real superpower did much to cower Eastern Europe, much to inspire would-be totalitarians around the world, much to justify a seemingly unnecessary nuclear arms race that continues to have repercussions, and much to justify atavistic movements in Russia today. Had the strength of the Soviet system been more accurately gauged (i.e., as a leech on the West), a very different policy toward the Soviets would have been clear, as would be the proper place of the Soviets in the dustbin of history.

[Virgil61]

My original point was that the Soviet empire has been made out to be some great superpower and rival of the West, like some Carthage to our (NATO) Rome. This is the point I wish to dispute, not whether the Red Army did a fine job of standing up to the Nazis.

 

... Had the strength of the Soviet system been more accurately gauged (i.e., as a leech on the West), a very different policy toward the Soviets would have been clear, as would be the proper place of the Soviets in the dustbin of history.

 

There's certainly something to that although I'd posit that even without any 'leeching' the Soviet state with it's internal cohersion, economic inefficiences and later Brezhnevian bureaucratic schlorosis--complete with an almost semi-instituted system of false reporting--would've done itself in.

 

Western intel agencies, especially the CIA as a whole, were duped, possibly by their own mindset, into putting forth the Soviet 'menace'. I remember a CIA or DoD fact book released just before the fall in '88, which predicted Soviet parity with the US on the naval front in a decade. Whoops.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's interesting to note how the two spy agencies--the NKVD and CIA--erred in such different ways. Under Stalin, agents who returned from the West claiming that it wasn't a land of starving masses ready to revolt against their capitalist masters were executed, leading the Soviets to consistently underestimate the state of the West. In contrast, the CIA (as your anecdote illustrates) routinely overestimated the capacities of the Soviets, leading us to arm ourselves to the teeth against a mirage.

 

I take the lesson to be that the Soviet ideology led them to their errors. What can we say of the American errors in the opposite direction? My hunch is that it was the same thing that led Nixon to be so tongue-tied in the "kitchen debate," an unjustified but sneaking suspicion that the Soviet system really was all that they claimed it to be.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Has anyone read Panzer Commander Von Luck? If you have, it'll give a pretty damn good look about the situation on all the major fronts, because Von Luck has been to all them and even suffered the Russian gulags after the war. Now he's a guy who knew the war from beginning to end and fought honorably.

 

here's the link to amazon catalog

 

By the way, I would like to state my beliefs that the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS was always the better army, but severe negligence through Hitler screwed them over, especially during Dunkirk and Battle over Britain. To add, even if they were poorly equiped by 1944-5, they still had the best tanks, especially the Tiger IIs and most especially the Panther, which clearly outclassed the T-34s.

Edited November 20, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Julius Ratus]

The website was excellently made, I only wish it was still up and running. Julius R, seeing as you are familiar with WWII history, have you come across this site?

 

The main site I use for the RKKA in WWII is www.battlefield.ru It is translated by a fellow on the Flames of War forum (www.flamesofwar.com) called jozhik chernobl'skii (possibly spelled wrong). If you have any question of a technical nature dealing with the RKKA I can log on and ask him.

 

Otherwise, I think there is a few quotes in the book "Russia's Heroes" that tell how the Russian people largely supported Order 227. In fact, the Russian people, with a few exceptions, supported their government in the Great Patriotic War. Someone is bound to make some snide remark about how if they didn't then they would disappear, but with WWII this is really not the case. The Nemetski (Germans) were seen as invaders who were violating Mother Russia and so had to be crushed, at any cost.

[Julius Ratus]

By the way, I would like to state my beliefs that the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS was always the better army, but severe negligence through Hitler screwed them over, especially during Dunkirk and Battle over Britain. To add, even if they were poorly equiped by 1944-5, they still had the best tanks, especially the Tiger IIs and most especially the Panther, which clearly outclassed the T-34s.

 

The Konigstiger, Tiger II, was actually a flop. The thing had terrible fuel consumption. It's armour was thick but it was low quality (Germany was running out of Manganese). Here is the official Russian report from their tests on captured Konigstigers.

 

Shortcomings:

The chassis is complex and is not durable.

The steering mechanism is complex and expensive.

The side running gear is extremely unreliable.

The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks.

The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located.

The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."

 

The full article is here battlefield.ru

[Virgil61]

It's interesting to note how the two spy agencies--the NKVD and CIA--erred in such different ways. Under Stalin, agents who returned from the West claiming that it wasn't a land of starving masses ready to revolt against their capitalist masters were executed, leading the Soviets to consistently underestimate the state of the West. In contrast, the CIA (as your anecdote illustrates) routinely overestimated the capacities of the Soviets, leading us to arm ourselves to the teeth against a mirage.

 

I take the lesson to be that the Soviet ideology led them to their errors. What can we say of the American errors in the opposite direction? My hunch is that it was the same thing that led Nixon to be so tongue-tied in the "kitchen debate," an unjustified but sneaking suspicion that the Soviet system really was all that they claimed it to be.

 

Let's not forget the recent intel errors in Iraq which had me, for at least a week's time, helping search for non-existent large numbers of WMD. Interesting exercise nontheless which led my unit to this location. The artificial 'hill' (a 'swirl' allowing a road in the gap) was complete when we found it. Very eerie, like a late 60s/early 70s community college campus.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

By the way, I would like to state my beliefs that the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS was always the better army, but severe negligence through Hitler screwed them over, especially during Dunkirk and Battle over Britain. To add, even if they were poorly equiped by 1944-5, they still had the best tanks, especially the Tiger IIs and most especially the Panther, which clearly outclassed the T-34s.

 

The Konigstiger, Tiger II, was actually a flop. The thing had terrible fuel consumption. It's armour was thick but it was low quality (Germany was running out of Manganese). Here is the official Russian report from their tests on captured Konigstigers.

 

Shortcomings:

The chassis is complex and is not durable.

The steering mechanism is complex and expensive.

The side running gear is extremely unreliable.

The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks.

The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located.

The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."

 

The full article is here battlefield.ru

I'll make it simple:

Offensively= Tiger IIs did not have much effect in a spearhead

Defensely= Surprisingly great choice for holding the line or for retreats.

 

Firstly, I would say that by 1944, what did you expect when the Allies were bombing the factories, but still even if the armor was lower grade, many high-powered projectiles still could't pierce it. Moreover, it was much of a factor when it came to the armor because most the efficiency of the guns of German tanks at long range utterly destroyed many enemy tanks before they got even near. Second, the Tiger II was a great defensive weapon(especially when the Allies had no air support), though the Germans realize that this heavy tank was just too slow and heavy for offensive use, which is why you have the Panzer III, IV and medium tank Panther.

 

And by the way, the Russians may think the King Tiger was a flop, but the Allies in Normandy sure as hell did not because the Tiger IIs and Panthers gave them enormous problems during that long month of horrible weather and no air support, poor Shermans.

Edited November 21, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's interesting to note how the two spy agencies--the NKVD and CIA--erred in such different ways. Under Stalin, agents who returned from the West claiming that it wasn't a land of starving masses ready to revolt against their capitalist masters were executed, leading the Soviets to consistently underestimate the state of the West. In contrast, the CIA (as your anecdote illustrates) routinely overestimated the capacities of the Soviets, leading us to arm ourselves to the teeth against a mirage.

 

Let's not forget the recent intel errors in Iraq which had me, for at least a week's time, helping search for non-existent large numbers of WMD.

 

Funny--I originally included a reference to the phantom WMD, but I excised it as being too off-topic. Nevertheless, I agree (though I fell for Colin Powell's presentation hook, line, and sinker).

[Julius Ratus]

And by the way, the Russians may think the King Tiger was a flop, but the Allies in Normandy sure as hell did not because the Tiger IIs and Panthers gave them enormous problems during that long month of horrible weather and no air support, poor Shermans.

 

This I will give you, but the Western Front was a whole different ball game. American, and to a lesser extent British, tanks were vastly inferior to those of the Germans or Russians. The Sherman was an utter piece of crap except when used on the Pacific front and in North Africa. The Pz. III with the long 5 cm gun was easily a match for the Sherman and the upgraded Pz. IV's (F1 through H) were clearly superior to the Sherman in gun capabilities and with the G(late) to H it had equal if not better armour.

 

Against the Russian T-34 obr '42 the Pz III was outclassed, and against the T-34 obr '43 (T-34/85) the Pz. IV was outclassed. The T-34 obr '43 could even take on Panthers and Tigers, in the proper situation.

 

Excepting the American 90mm and the British 17 pdr the Western Allies had no guns comparable to the Russian 85mm or the German 8.8 cm. The Americans had few tanks mounting the 90mm (the Pershing and the M36 Tank Destroyer are the only two I know of) and British 17 pdr were also reletively rarely mounted on tanks (The Sherman Firefly and the Achilles II Tank Destroyer).

 

On the other hand, the Russians mounted 85mm's on T-34 obr '43's and on SU 85 assault guns. They also had assault guns mounting the 122mm and 152mm howitzers and the 100mm guns as well (the SU 122, SU 152, and the SU100 respectively). The armour-piercing projectiles from the 100mm and upgraded 122mm guns penetrated the Konigstiger's frontal armour at ranges of 1000-1500 meters. This is considered long range.

 

True, the Western Allies had difficulties against the Konigstiger, but it was a reletively rare tank. Many of them were captured because they were abadoned when they ran out of fuel. The Konigstiger was yet another example of the wasted efforts of the Germans to build wunderwaffen (wonder weapons) in order to win the war. The Konigstger project consumed immense rescources and in part bled dry other programs. Aginst the Western Allies the Pz. IV G-H was sufficient. All Pz. III and Pz. IV tanks should have been transfered to the Western Front, and the Tigers and Panthers should have been used against the Russians, where they could have been used to greater effect.

 

Basically, the Sherman was nigh useless against any foe excepting maybe the Italians and the Japanese.

 

P.S. Sorry if I am boring anyone.