Foxbat

Grisha's project: Zvezda (Star)

cbb, the fact that Carell's books don't carry big disclaimers saying "how zionist moneylenders backstabbed our war effort" and don't have highly overt political claims or obviously distorted descriptions doesn't make it any less propaganda, it only makes it better propaganda. Of course Carrell doesn't come out of the woodwork outright, a covert lie works better than one that stands on it's own because you will be less likely to question -or even reflect on- it. Therefore he shapes the impression he wants to give of of the war by providing a believeable context which covers the underlying propaganda. For example he dishes up his "anecdotal evidence" with no source (the all-seeing eye just happened to be at that unit at the time and later reported it to Carell, or did a Signal write-up about it). He paints a picture of the Wehrmacht fighting and the SS killing, and why would you disbelieve it? The SS were nasties and the Wehrmacht common soldiers. He pictures Stalingrad as an epic battle rather than the clusterf-k it really was and suggest that, maybe, it was for the best that 6th Armee committed mass-suicide (this was a major theme in german propaganda at the time). Probably the boldest lie is that of the pre-emptive war. Sure there are other books that claim the same (generally to push the writer's agenda), but there is not a shred of factual evidence while there is insurmountable evidence that the german attack on the soviet-union was being considered well before it actually happened. All in all it comes down to the fact that the reader is reading the books of a high-ranking Nazi (of which the reader is intentionally left unaware) and are accepting the picture he paints of the war. That simply doesn't agree with the idea that it could also be detailed, accurate and unbiased history. And even if there was nothing wrong with the books it would be more than appropriate to come down hard on the author for obscuring his background, he was a high-level nazi and people should at least be aware what he was and did when they are exposed to his works.

When Titans clashed, by David Glantz. Covers much the same as Erickson but in pocketbook format. Very readable especially for a work by Glantz focuses on the operational and theatre level, which may seem boring to some but at least it avoids the anecdotal/tactical stuff that fills many a page in other works*. * Anecdotes are fine with me, but they generally digress into the kind "and the valiant tank commander Hans Klumoenstrumpfer [Ivan Unprounouncablelastenameov] rode into battle peering the horizon for Jabos [Stukas] when he suddenly heard a crack in a bush 800 meters away. "Ambush!" he shouted, "enemy 76mmgun with Subcalibre loaded [88gun or somefink] in that bush at 3 o'clock". His tankgun roared as it fired it's deadly load into the bush. With apparent disregard for his own life Hans [Ivan] clambered onto the turret and used his binoculars [a pair of dusty specs] to ascertain the destruction of the threat he had localised only seconds ago, and that could have cost his, his crew's and their wives and children their lives had it been succesfull in it's ambush. That may be fine for some, but to me it just obscures what really happened when Hans was so bravely kicking russian's ass during the Korsun relief attempt. [ December 05, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I guess Andreas beat me to it Here is a global translation of Paul's advice to the Hungarians: "From a quite good overview of the running and planned jew-actions I understand that in june a major action on the jews of Budapest is planned. The planned action will by it's size cause great awareness and will lead to an intense reaction. The opposition [enemy] will cry out and talk of manhunt and such, and with horror-stories try to work-up a change in attitude in the neutrals. I would therefore implore that this should not lead to the cancellation of actions but to the providing of external reasons and meaning for these actions, for example explosives in jewish community centers and synagogues, sabaotage-organisations, plans for a revolt, assaults on the police, grand monetary schemes with the intent of undermining the Hungarian economy. The key-piece in such an action should be a especially torrid example, on which one can then justify the main razzia." Staatsarchiv Nürnberg NG-2424 [translation by Foxbat] In short he's telling them to cover-up the razzia rather than bluntly saying it's a jewhunt. Propaganda 101 of course, but it clearly shows his involvement in both the propaganda apparatus as well as his links to the nazi-agenda.

Joined the party in 1931, switched from brownshirts to black in 1934 (IIRC) was head of the propaganda division of the foreign ministry. Not really a high-ranking nazi in terms of bodycount but pretty high on the ladder in the nazi propaganda effort (wasn't he jointly responsible for the "Signal" publciation? You know the full-colour all-illustrated glossy on the joys of army life and the gallant victories of the german army and it's co-belligerents). I wonder why they always point out his background as a propgandist? Other than that it is full of holes and "anecdotal" hyperbole that is allegedly based on his experiences (uh-huh based on Signal propaganda articles more like), it gives a horribly distorted picture of the germans fighting gallantly and against the odds (overwheleming numbers of russkies everywhere). He promotes the ideas of Stalingrad as a valiant sacrifice for the greater good (a blatant lie made up by the nazi propaganda machine to whitewash the disaster), Barbarossa as a preventative war the poor germans had to attack before uncle Joe would steamroller them, the Wehrmacht as a clean-hands organisation supposedly all crimes were committed by nasty einsatzcommandas not by the gallant knights of germany, the german warmachine as infallible only the interference of a meddling Hitler prevented the 0bersoldiers of the Wehrmacht from victory.. I could go on and on. The initial poster mentioned that his works offered a view from the german and the russian side, I found that remark quite funny They are very readable and cover most of the war in the east (at least the bits that were important to the germans, let's not mention how the russkies got to Berlin, they just did). But it's closer to boys-literature than to serious history (and nazi-inspired boys-literature at that).

I get to be the first to mertion that Paul "Carrell" was actually a high-ranking nazi and a member of the nazi-propaganda machine? Wow, that's like getting the first post ..only better. Let's just say that his observations on the war as seen from the russian side are questionable to say the least... If you can read german here's an interesting piece on Obersturmbahnfuhrer Paul Schmidt: Kriegs- und Nachkriegskarriere des Pressechefs im NS- Außenministerium [ December 04, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

It would depend on what kind of penal battalion it was. If we're talking an officers penal battalion then these are highly trained and (presumably) skilled soldiers with generally previous combat experience. Other penal units would be composed of ordinary soldiers who had messed up in the eyes of the army, common criminals or both. In fact the only thing in common between various forms of penal battalions would be a high level of fanatiscism (albeit generally of the sort imposed from the outside) and the fact that they had to do the "dirty work", which generally meant leading assault and other high risk missions arther than walking into minefields Some interesting links: [ December 04, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I had seen it, but despite the authentic looking diagrams* the info has about 90% overlap with what Zaloga writes, so I have a sneaking suspicion that's where they got their info too Nothing wrong with that of course, but it means that it has the same holes as Zaloga's text. * Ok let me rephrase that, the diagrams seem to be adapted from authentic russian sources, while the context is from Zaloga (sometimes almost verbatim) or freom the same sources as Zaloga used. That certainly looks very interesting, thanks very much. A bit more than I can digest in one sitting though Cheers, Lev [ December 04, 2002, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

Since audio travels about as fast on wire as it does through the air the actual time before the rounds start dropping is practically the same But as x13 points out the wire FO is less flexible in its movements on the battlefield (and it can't be carried in vehicles).

The naked vixen says to thank you. Was this realised after experience? Seems awful short notice, or was it an expedient measure that not only cut the lines of command but also overhead. Aagh, I have enough trouble keeping up with changes in nominal organisation.. sometimes I wonder if they just introduced these changes too confuse people :mad:

Great help in fact. That not only explains the location of the "extra" T-34s, it also explains why the addition of 10 mediums resulted in an increase by 9 A question answered, but a new question arises. How many heavy tank brigades were there, Zaloga only mention one (7th Guards IIRC) that was a reformed medium brigade. And another question too, I was under the impression that the heavies had all been siphoned of into regiments. Were the heavy tank brigades made up from two regiments or did they follow a different organisation?

I bet it would take several pages of discussion to explain the concept of reading

Shoot 'n Scoot tells the tank to do what it would naturally want to do anyway so it is more likely to succeed in doing that

Hmmm Maybe I should change the thread name? Maybe "Naked vixen and the problem of the KV tanks in the September 1942 Mech Corps TO&E [includes Pics]" or something like that would attract the people to this thread

Massa, the third link is the same as the second. Perhaps you meant the Achtung Panzer! website?

Starting out with the conclusion and a complete debunk of the 'Monster Tank-Retreat "Bug"' won't help starting a debate

You, sir, are a grog.</font>

Note the T-34M41 in the 1943 picture, can't have been very good

Any grogs in the know? I always thought a Tank Regiment was supposed to be a simple structure, no intermediate command levels, next to no inf or support. Just a bunch of tanks in a few companies. So what did I miss? [ December 03, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

But that's the reality, the russian infantry regiment has 76mm guns and the divisional artillery has a mix of 122 and 76. Obviously the 76mm guns will be the ones used in direct-fire (exceptions excepted of course ). And I wonder if having bif guns as standard support weapon really is an advantadge, it is one a gun-for-gun basis but the russians will have more and handier guns. ps. Not that I would be against having 122 or 152mm guns as direct-fire assets

I appreciate your effort, but my problem is only with the Mechanized Corps that seem to have more tanks then I can find in the Brigades. And especially the Tank Regiments of the Mech Brigades are an enigma to me, as they have more tanks then I would expect in the companies (extra HQ tanks? Reserve tanks? Imaginary tanks?).

You first need to place the picture online, once you've done that just look up it's location. Make a new post, hit the 'img button' and paste (or type) the location. Unfortunatly decent hosting space is hard to come by these days

This what I thought the regiment would look like: Except I need to put those extra T-34s somewhere [ November 30, 2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I've been working on an article for my website on tank unit orgs but the Mechanized Corps organisation is giving me headaches. For the article I've been relying mostly on Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" which is generally a very good and complete reference work, but some things just don't add up. Especially the September 1942 Mech Corps structure has a few dark spots. First of all Zaloga includes 5 KVs in the September 1942 Mechanized Corps tank strength which do not seem to be included in any of the Corps' units. Secondly and to my great frustration he mentions the September 1942 Tank Regiment to have two Medium Tank Companies that are both triangular (as usual in soviet units of the time) and have 23 T-34. Now there simply is no way to divide 23 tanks in two triangular formations, so what gives? Normally a medium tank company would be 3 3-tank platoons plus a tank in the company HQ, ie 10 tanks. And with nominally no command level between company and regiment I get only 21 mediums in a two company regiment. Then in January 1943 things get even weirder as another 10 tank company is added and the number of mediums in the regiment becomes 32 :confused: [ November 30, 2002, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I only have the bottom half of a 25pdr shell (stamped 1942), used only once. But at least it's practical, it has post-war local modifications that make it a proper ashtray