Skipper

I suspect that pre-1943 'krasnoarmeyets' is post-1943 'ryadovoy'. Either way, it's equivalent of a private. Other common ranks didn't change in 1943 - they just re-introduced shoulderboards for officers. What did change was ranks of senior officers and political officers. Similarity of ranks to german shouldn't surprise anyone. These ranks came to Russia from Prussia in XVIII century. In 1917 ranks were abandoned, and army men referred to each other by the job, as in "comrade deputy platoon commander". Needless to say, this system instead of simplifyng things, complicated them. So, the prussian ranks were re-introduced in RKKA.

> I have read the list of ranks Keep in mind that it has drastically changed in 1943. Below info is post-1943. > a) what was the "authorized" rank Squad: sergeant Platoon: Jr.Lt. Company: Lt > What was this likely to be in actual practice? For full strength units - as said above. For understrength - anything. There was a case when a military journalist assumed command of a batallion (remnants thereof) - when the combat, chief of staff, zampolit and all company COs were out of action. > So I don't want to assume that Russian squads > were led by sergeants also, for all I know, it > could have been private soldiers in that role. Easily. They would be rather quickly promoted to sergeants though. > Secondly, how many awards for bravery did > the Soviet Army have? A lot more than on your list. I don't have full list anywhere at hand, but you missed even a few significant ones - such as the Red Star and the Order of Lenin. > how common was it for the Order of Lenin to be > awarded on its own to a combat soldier? Common. > c) What type of distinctions (if any) did the > Red Army have to recognize Sorry, no list on this on either. GTO and Voroshilovsky Strelok come to mind.

Of course, in reallife you would have special ammo, rather than HE for this kind of thing. Ain't know how it is called in English.

Well, my reference to Mein Kampf was not in anyway intended to be cynical or offensive. That book was the charismatic vision of der fuhrer, printed in black and white in millions of copies and used for indoctrination of masses. There were other documents, dated 1941-42, outlining implementation plan of that vision. Nazi government had a department dealing with these plans specifically. So, there is no reason to think that this vision would not become a reality if germans won the war. Of course, people who joined german forces might not think about this. If they would know this and still joined german forces, well... On the issue of soviet POWs released from german captivity. I can dig up some statistics, but basically speaking the notion that they were all killed or imprisoned is ridiculous. This whole business was about institutional paranoia, not some monstrous blood lust. In reallife most of these people went through filtration camps (several weeks) and released. Less than 5% were sentenced to imprisonment terms, and several thousand executed. NOT for surrendering in the first place, mostly, but for alleged cooperation with Germans during captivity.

Yup, Galicia is the word. There are many regions in Ukraine - something like 30. Btw, one of my ganddads was from Poltava.

It's a long story. I would have to start somewhere like one thousand years ago, give you a brief summary of russian history of 1000-1500 (some people say it was ukranian history mainly, but okay, it's just subtleties of terminology), then discuss in great detail the story of Polish invasion (XVII century), wars with Turks and Swedes (XVIII century), Napoleonic campaigns and from there on and on. Well, it's a long story... Bottom line is: Ukraine was not some sort of russian colony. A mainstream ukranian in 1940s would be a soviet citizen in good standing, just like mainstream russian. Western ukranians (those who lived within borders of pre-war Poland) were a separate story. So, a ukranian in german service would be either a misguided western ukranian, or a traitor. Why I say misguided? It is worth remembering, what were the Nazi intentions concerning land and population of Ukraine. Plse refer to Mein Kampf for further details.

Without doubt, Wehrmacht obr. 1941 was a mean beast. However... ...on the operational scale that JasonC discussed above, it wasn't actually such a tough threat in 1941. Not much tougher than taking on all those french heavies (NB: who was commonly regarded as the most powerful military of the world in 1938? Right, it was France!). Enjoying total superiority in the air (read, having nearly perfect online reconnaissance and denying same to RKKA) and in mobility, Wehrmacht could nearly always beat its soviet opponents in operational deployments and in counter-battery fight. Which meant that in virtually any important sector RKKA was outnumbered and outgunned, even though totals are perhaps telling a different story.

Let's also not forget more than 50% of heavy equipment (including armor) lost by RKKA in the 1941 catastrophe was just abandoned, due to the lack of fuel / ammo / spares / mobility assets etc. Total domination of Luftwaffe in the air and swift encirclements did that.

I guess, some 10 million REAL ukranians who served in the Red Army don't count?

Never heard about RKKA encountering any serious resistance in Poland. Just some small scale sabotage, basically. By the time RKKA entered Poland, polish troops were defeated, their government was in London, and iirc a general order was out to surrender to russians without fight. By all soviet accounts, it was just a matter of moving in.

Wojsko Polskoe in terms of organisation, TOE etc was same as normal RKKA formations. Afaik, there were also quite a few soviet officers in it. Polish units were regarded quite highly for their fighting abilities - not sneezed at like Germans felt about all their allies. It is a pity Poles don't make it into the game. Speaking of French, I am not aware about any french units fighting in Russia. Except Mormandia-Neman, of course. Were there any??? [ February 28, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

I am teling you, there even was a combat instruction issued for that.

According to anti-tank combat instructions for "guards mortars" (soviet WWII codename for MLRS), minimum direct fire distance for BM-13 was 200 m. For closer distances it was recommended to use AT rifles (organic in MLRS batteries).

"anyone who mistreated the civilians in Russia was subject to military discipline." For the sake of clarification. Exactly opposite = mistreating (namely, killing) russian civilians was not subject to any liability. Moreover, it was actually encouraged on the official level. Which is all I am saying. > Well stalin isn't very liked person in Russia. > Well over 40 million people were murdered by > his order. Many minor nationalities came to > extinct. (shrug) why not make it 400 million? or 4000? FYI: 40 million is the number of all males of age 20 to 50 in USSR circa 1941. > discipline in the German Army in 1941-44, and > in the Red Army in 1945, were different things > indeed Yeah? So, Germans lost to an undisciplined horde? (shrug) Anyhow, killing a civvy on a whim was not a subject of military discipline for germans in Russia. It was permitted. [ February 25, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

M Hofbauer, Do I need to tell you the difference between "all", "most" and "many"? And I fully agree that each veteran experienced his own personal version of WWII. In the ealy war it was not that bad. Neither was it in the end. Neither was it that bad in Western Ukraine or in the south. However, there were also Belarussia, eastern Ukrain and Russia proper. Especially, Belarussia. > If there was a general order applicable to > every ordinary wehrmacht soldier that > instructed him to mistreat each and every > russian civilian under the threat of punishing > him Bad rhetorics, my friend. You are pissed of by what I say, and you are putting some stupid statements in my mouth, that I never actually said or implied. There was (a) a waiver of criminal liability, and ( an order to act with extreme brutality, even if a slightest disobeyance was observed. Basically, a license to kill at will. As for documents, orders to that extent were issued by OKH and several Army Group commanders in the beginning of Babarossa. I am not in the right mood to spend an hour or so to dig up the archive references for that. Maybe somebody else will.

> certainly not as common as Red Army rapes in > Germany in 1945, and probably far, far less > common Yet another myth about the ever-hungry russian bear... What I know is that several thousand people (3 or 4, iirc) ended up in disbat for this particular crime. Say, five times as many get away with it. That's many, if you ask me. Were germans "far less common" on that account? No, I don't think so. > I can accept stories of cruelty, or at the > least wilful blindness to human privations > (hunger, lack of shelter, thirst, etc.), but I > would not think that rape was all that common. Oh, come on! Do you really think that partisan movement participation in the 7 digits figures arose out of "blindness"? Mind you, we are talking hundreds of thousands of volunteers, most of whom joined before nazi doom looked in any way certain. Out of 20 million Soviet citizen dead, ~12 million were not in the army, and most of these 12 million perished in the areas of german occupation. Consider also this: practically every soldier in the army that entered Germany in 1945 has lost a close friend or relative (as in wives, children, parents, brothers, sisters). Many of them - more than one. In nearly every platoon there were people who lost whole families. All thanks to the german invasion. I mean, it's hard to describe with words how pissed off an army that was. I am not trying to justify anything here...just to point out that objectively speaking, if not for the russian habit to forgive, Germany would have been burned to the ground. As it was, German civilian casualties from soviet occupation are in no way comparable to the other way around.

> Gary remembered that anyone who mistreated the > civilians in Russia was subject to military > discipline. I'm sorry guys, but there are written, official, high level orders that say exactly opposite, and specifically for Russia. Were used as legal evidence in Nuremberg. So, even if many unit COs prohibited excesses as a mater of operational security, there were plenty enough who didn't care. The further the war went on, the more Partisan movement was so widespread not simply because Stalin ordered so.

Oh, in that sense - yes. But you were not supposed to be same as everybody else in pursuing that goal. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Ideology-wise, it never was about "sameness". Equality - yes. Putting collective interests above personal - yes. Sameness??? What the heck are you talking there about?

Of which you clearly have no idea. For your guidance, soviet and communist ideology always relied on personified myth. Heroes. Anybody who graduated from school before 1990 knows about Gastello, Kosmodemyanskaya, Meresyev, Matrosov, defenders of Brest fortress, etc etc etc. That's for WWII, and that's only a small part of the whole list.

> the units given Guards status had a different > TO&E than standard units. Better stuff AND more > of it. Sometimes, but not at all necessarily.

Yup, I've definitely noticed that. His knowledge of WWII minutae is admirable, but what is truly awe-inspiring is his ability to make broad generalizations from this in-depth knowledge base.

Gee, a troll.

The fact that airborne divisions were more combat-capable than US Army average doesn't actually make them elite "in CM terms". Read the CM manual. Speaking of Soviet "better than regular" units, starting from fall 1941, RKKA formations that distinguished themselves in combat were awarded Guards (Gvardia) status. Guards units were usually better equipped, better manned, and employed in critical situations more often than normal units. MLRS regiments and airborne divisions reformed as infantry divisions were granted this status automatically. Also come to mind NKVD divisions formed from border guard, and assault engineer brigades. Definitely, there were commando units, too. Such as divisional recon companies, long-range recon companies, Osnaz companies etc.

well, maybe these designated "blocking squads" were established later, and maybe there was no official SOP for the NKVD troops shooting deserters, but it is a fact that the NKVD acted as a de facto blocking force as early as 1941.</font>