WAS THE RUSSIAN MILITARY A STEAMROLLER?

[Ivanov]

An interesting article:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/was-the-russian-military-a-steamroller-from-world-war-ii-to-today/

Of course if anyone believes that the Red Army had a 10:1 numerical superiority over the Axis on the Eastern Front is... well, misinformed. But if you look at the force ratios during the crucial moments of the war - November 1942 and July 1941, the Red Army had a 1.8:1 numerical superiority which is actually a lot, given also the mismanagement in the deployment of German forces. Where they wanted, the Soviets were actually able to achieve much greater superiority, which of course is a testimony to their operational and strategic skill.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Ivanov

[MikeyD]

What's that aphorism? Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. If you've achieved superiority on the macro scale then the micro scale superiority doesn't much matter. Because no matter how strong your local defenses the defenders will simply be bypassed, cut-off and starved out. But a tactical-style game where the defenders lose contact with their rear and just sit there doesn't sound like much fun. Much of the initial German success in '42 involved huge Russian units being bypassed and finding the battle was a fait accompli without them firing a shot.

[hattori]

Well, now it feels that you're swinging a bit too far to the Russian side and implying the Russians were absolutely amazing at all operational planning.  Operation Mars went so poorly the Russians basically tried to hide it to protect Zhukov's reputation.  Let's also remember the Russians were able to maintain their later operational successes because the other allies were shipping them a ton of supplies as well -- what, 500k trucks?  40k motorcycles?  Something like 10k tanks?  15k fighters?   Thousands of train engines and cars.  Not to mention  boots, food, oil, and all those other goodies.  It's a whole lot easier to plan great operations when you have a ton more stuff logistically.

[Michael Emrys]

13 minutes ago, hattori said:

 It's a whole lot easier to plan great operations when you have a ton more stuff logistically.

Sure, but all that "stuff" is of no value if you can't figure out how to use it. Look at Chang Kai-shek. We sent him a pile of logistical support way in excess of any harm he ever did to the Japanese.

Michael

[hattori]

Just imagine what would have happened to Kai-shek with no lend lease -- I don't know enough about that conflict to say the Japanese would have finished off the Chinese, but the results would have probably been much worse.  Even then, Stilwell was convinced Kai-shek was hording a lot of the supplies so the Chinese National Army would be ready to crush the communists (that didn't work out so well either) once the Americans had finished off the Japanese for them.  I'm also not sure Kai-shek was all that interested in bringing the fight to the Japanese once they were slowed down if he could get the Americans and the British to do the fighting for him.

[Childress]

'Sure, but all that "stuff" is of no value if you can't figure out how to use it. Look at Chang Kai-shek. We sent him a pile of logistical support way in excess of any harm he ever did to the Japanese.'

Chang Kai-shek deliberately husbanded the material sent him by the US. He foresaw a conflict with Mao and the communists after the departure of the Japanese and felt he needed every plane, bullet, and barrel of oil for that showdown . Rightly or wrongly.

[JonS]

On 7/20/2016 at 3:18 PM, Childress said:

Chang Kai-shek deliberately husbanded the material sent him by the US. He foresaw a conflict with Mao and the communists after the departure of the Japanese and felt he needed every plane, bullet, and barrel of oil for that showdown . Rightly or wrongly.

Sure, but it didn't help him, did it? Why? because operationally and logistically (as well as tactically and strategically) CKS was a dick, regardless of whether he was "fighting" the Japanese or Mao. As Emrys said 'all that "stuff" is of no value if you can't figure out how to use it.'

[Childress]

11 hours ago, JonS said:

Sure, but it didn't help him, did it?

 

You're right, it didn't. And 60 million+ Chinese paid the price.

[francis199]

The article matches some of what I have read on the topic, and its a well known fact that battles are often won before they start as far as logistics go. Other than that, the Russian's strategic superiority on such a massive front did allow them to gain the enormously lopsided ratios on the tactical level when on the attack. (Which is why some of the German vets describe this in their post war memoirs). This combined with the Red Army's propensity to literally obliterate sections of the Wehrmacht's front line with artillery before an assault certainly make it a steam roller.

[JonS]

3 hours ago, Childress said:

And 60 million+ Chinese paid the price.

Ah, the old Appeal to Emotion. Well, played

[JonS]

3 minutes ago, francis199 said:

(Which is why some of the German vets describe this in their post war memoirs). This combined with the Red Army's propensity to literally obliterate sections of the Wehrmacht's front line with artillery before an assault certainly make it a steam roller.

Some myths die hard. Very, very hard.

Also, welcome to the forum. Interesting choice of first post.

Edited July 22, 2016 by JonS

[francis199]

Thank's figured I would jump right in, this one caught my eye.

[Childress]

21 hours ago, JonS said:

Ah, the old Appeal to Emotion. Well, played

Ouch, Jon! That was  a withering emoji! 

No, it's appeal to counterfactual considerations. Chiang Kai-Shek was demonstrably ineffectual but a mass murderer on the scale of Mao and his minions, no, I think not. Not to mention the starvation that always attends the seizure of power by communist ideologues. At least the Nazis, evil as they were, presided over several years of prosperity.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Childress

[JonS]

... which has what to do with logistics? (That's why its an appeal to emotion. Not because you're wrong, but because it has nothing to do with logistics)

(but since we're already well off track; I'm not sure that the Poles, or the Ukrainians, or the Belgians experienced "several years of prosperity.")

Edited July 23, 2016 by JonS

[Childress]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

... which has what to do with logistics? (That's why its an appeal to emotion. Not because you're wrong, but because it has nothing to do with logistics)

 

Uh?

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Childress said:

At least the Nazis, evil as they were, presided over several years of prosperity.

For whom? I don't recall that the Poles or Ukrainians did very well under him, to say nothing of the Dutch during the "Starvation Winter" or almost any non-Germans who came under the German empire.

Michael

[Childress]

ME: From 1933-39 the Nazis killed inflation and unemployment. Even the birthrate went up. Poles, Ukrainians, Belgians... that's later.

Just givin' the Devil his due.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Childress

[Michael Emrys]

10 minutes ago, Childress said:

ME: From 1933-39 the Nazis killed inflation and unemployment. Even the birthrate went up. Poles, Ukrainians... that's later.

Just givin' the Devil his due.

You might want to take another look at that. The "prosperity" that the Germans were enjoying at that time came as a consequence of rapidly spending the very limited supply of foreign cash. The vast majority of German industrial production was devoted to domestic consumption, notably a rapid rearmament, and not much to foreign trade. Germany was right on the verge of going broke with a severe balance of payments problem. The German economy was rescued in the first instance by the Anschluss and the seizure of Austrian reserves and in the second instance by grabbing Czechoslovakia with its reserves. Then of course after the war began, large scale theft continued at an even brisker pace. All this is courtesy of Adam Tooze, though I expect that if you want to do your own independent research you can find the same data elsewhere.

Michael

[Childress]

You can define Germany's prosperity pre-war as factitious. However, the numbers don't support that theory even before the Anschluss. Foreigners who visited Berlin during the Olympics were deeply impressed.

Germany was the first nation to emerge from the Depression. The USA remained in the economic doldrums until the outbreak of war.

Given his long term plans, Hitler had every incentive to rebuild the economy. And he did.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Childress

[Michael Emrys]

2 minutes ago, Childress said:

You can define Germany's prosperity pre-war as factitious. However, the numbers don't support that theory. Foreigners who visited Berlin during the Olympics were deeply impressed.

I don't doubt that. My point is that it was not based on any solid economic foundation. It was a bubble, a pipe dream, and it would not have lasted another year without the events I mentioned.

Michael

[Childress]

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

' German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20 '

Edited July 23, 2016 by Childress

[Michael Emrys]

And in 1938 the German economy was about to go off a cliff, landing in a deeper hole than it had been in during early 1933.

Michael

[JonS]

5 hours ago, Childress said:

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

You're un-ironically quoting IHR?

Seriously?

You lose.

Edited July 24, 2016 by JonS

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The Red Army did develop considerably during World War 2 and by 1944 had become highly effective at the operational level and was at least competent on a tactical level. That said, as the research of David Glantz reveals  there were many serious setbacks and defeats along the way. he failed April 1944 invasion of Romania being but one example. Did the Red Army win by brute force? No. They were up against a very tough and resourceful opponent as were the Western Akllies. It was a tough and bitter slog often to the very end of the war

[Childress]

10 hours ago, JonS said:

You're un-ironically quoting IHR?

Seriously?

You lose.

 

LOL, unknown to me it was a Holocaust denial site. Just picked it off Google. But we can't impeach  the noted British historian Niall Ferguson , can we?

Reason magazine has a more negative take on the Nazi recovery. Hitler did slay inflation and employment but at a great cost further down the line.:

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html