Minefield clearing, the Russian WWII way...

[Chelco]

Hello,

I am reading this book

Fighting in Hell: The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front -- by Peter G. Tsouras

A German general mentions there that the Russians have been seen clearing minefields using unarmed soldiers walking side by side and being killed by the mines or the German defensive fire.

I know that this book shows only the German perspective of the Eastern front and that the accounts writen in it have been indicated as inaccurate in some of the book's reviews.

However... Man, it seems like the poor Russian infantry man had two enemys during WWII: the Germans and it's own commanders.

Your feedback on this topic is appreciated.

[Chelco]

And when I play CMBB as the Russians I try to keep casualties at a minimum. Historically inacurate approach I'm using I guess.

[flamingknives]

There's a great deal of innaccuracy regarding Soviet tactics, especially with regards wasting men. Towards the end of the war especially, the German:Soviet kill ratio is actually close to what one would expect for two equally skilled armies.

The Soviets used mine rollers and artillery barrages, with the shell fuses on super-quick for surface bursts, to clear minefields, but I am given to understand that on occasion they did simply storm across minefields. This effect of this was that they got forces across an area that the Germans didn't expect, allowing them to outflank and reduce a position without a frontal assault. The reasoning was something like it was either go through the mines or attack a position. The casualties would have been the same either way, and going through the minefield was probably faster, which is a huge bonus for Soviet operational art, AIUI.

[Joachim]

"Have been seen" is a little vague. I doubt the General was at the front. There are other stories about unarmed soldiers assaulting - grabbing rifles from comrades once those fall. But this are probably just a few incidents. What is true is that massive waves of infantry usually followed tank breakthrus and overrun weakened positions.

In desperate moments soldiers might resort to these actions - after all there were even Kamikaze pilots. Penal battallions might act this way. A commander under intense pressure from his commissar might act this way.

There is also a quote about something like this: "It takes 1200 Soviets to overrun a position, 200 of them mountain troops. 1000 fall, and then the 200 mountain troops climb across the hills of those fallen". Stories tend to exaggerate real actions. It is human behaviour to flesh out some stories.

So I am gonna tell you a different story.

It starts with "they ran densely packed thru our minefields completely ignoring the mines and thus effectively removing all mines in their path". If you run towards a MG, it doesn't matter if there are mines, too - once you wait, the MG will get you... or the commissar in the rear. Your chances are best when you run. So this is still a somewhat reasonable story.

Now add some propaganda (e.g. stupid "Untermenschen", evil enemy government not caring for their own people etc.) or the need to emphasize the risks and problems of the front line troops. Do this 2 or 3 times, once each time the report goes one echelon up. "Dense" gets "side by side". As you can't run side by side it must be marching instead of running. And you have a story that has a small core of truth, sounds plausible (as everyone knows that the Soviets had human waves) but is widely exaggerated.

As the true core happened often, the story sounds very plausible and upon hearing it many German soldiers might have said "Yes, something similar happened to us, too". Thus you get many sources confirming it... until everybody believes it.

Gruß

Joachim

[Chelco]

Thanks for the feedback!

In this book there is also an account on how rapidly were spread among the Germans the versions of mine carrying-dogs supposedly trained by the Russians to run under the Panzers. The author rapidly claims that he never seen something like that and that surely never happened. Though, Panzer crews were told to fire on approaching dogs on the meantime.

[ April 23, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Judging by what I have read, most likely it were the penal companies that were thrown into the fire. I reefuse to believe that they were told bluntly to "defuse mines by walking on them" - more likely they were sent as the first wave to assault fortified enemy positions.

[Holman]

Ah, the good old Mine Dogs Debate! Why are they not in CMBB?!!?

The usual punchline to all reports of mine dogs is that they didn't work out well. Why? Because the dogs, trained to run under tanks and set off their explosives, would simply run under the nearest Russian tank when released. It seems that they couldn't distinguish between friendly and enemy tanks.

BTS, fix or do somefink!

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Joachim:

...Now add some propaganda (e.g. stupid "Untermenschen", evil enemy government not caring for their own people etc.) or the need to emphasize the risks and problems of the front line troops. ..

Gruß

Joachim

So true. I always wondered about the "evil Gurkas" during the Malvinas/Falklands War. I clearly recall being a kid back in Argentina and listening the Government run-news media telling us that the Gurkas wouldn't take prisoners and were cuting the throats of surrendered Argentinean conscripts. When the war ended and two of my friends came back from their POW place I asked them about it. They looked to each other and one answered: "Weren't those the guys who gave

us the hot meal?". Indeed they had their first hot meal in a month after surrendering .

I don't know the abolute truth, that's for sure. But terrible stories about a foe spread fast.

[Cessna]

One thing about minefields - they're meant to channel enemies into traps. If you're defending, you put mines where you don't want the enemy to go. If you've found a minefield, you know you've found a potential weak point in the enemy's defenses. It might be less costly in the long run to try to drive through that minefield rather than blundering into a trap...

[jthomas]

Originally posted by Cessna:

One thing about minefields - they're meant to channel enemies into traps. If you're defending, you put mines where you don't want the enemy to go. If you've found a minefield, you know you've found a potential weak point in the enemy's defenses. It might be less costly in the long run to try to drive through that minefield rather than blundering into a trap...

While using minefields to cover lightly defended approaches may have been used, it has always been my understanding that minefields are most effectively used in conjunction with covering fire- an unattended minefield is "inconvenient" to the attacker, but there are work-arounds. Place a few MGs to cover the mine field, and you have a serious obstacle. In essence, the minefield IS the trap.

[Sergei]

Yes. Mines are an obstacle and have a moral impact on the attacker - you just don't want to step into the unknown, rather you follow on the steps of others. Therefore effective deployment will be hindered until the mines are cleared (it's difficult to attack when all follow the same steps). Meanwhile covering fire on the minefield makes it difficult to clear the mines.

[Oddball_E8]

and since "clearing the mines" isnt a real question here, the link would be very weak indeed.

[Aco4bn187inf]

Regarding the possibility that it was a penal battalion sent through the minefield- I think I read that if you were wounded while serving in a penal battalion, you would be pardoned of your crime. Under those circumstances, the possibility seems a bit more plausable.

[Cessna]

Originally posted by jthomas:

While using minefields to cover lightly defended approaches may have been used, it has always been my understanding that minefields are most effectively used in conjunction with covering fire- an unattended minefield is "inconvenient" to the attacker, but there are work-arounds. Place a few MGs to cover the mine field, and you have a serious obstacle. In essence, the minefield IS the trap.

Oh, absolutely - but the mind-set is that the minefield is protecting a weakness that can be attacked. Better to attack through the minefield that is lightly defended than into a more heavily defended area...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by jthomas:

In essence, the minefield IS the trap.

That is of course perfectly true in a world ruled by field manuals.

On the eastern front, where your 1/3-1/2 strength battalion is today (anyday 1944) holding 4km or more of not particularly well-suited for defense frontline with only a tenous hold on the flanks, it may not be.