Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 613
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well.. all I know is my reply which you quoted was tongue in cheek.. can't say the same for yours.  I for one feel extremely lucky that the CMx2 series exists in as many forms as it does. B

So the British Ministry of Defense is subsidizing me playing w my toy soliders & tanks?  And all I have to do for this is wait a little longer for the new release?  I am considering this a win for

The only thing worse than 1940s Nazis is a present day Nazi. One might argue the populace 80 years ago were naïf about just what sort of monsters they were supporting. You can't make that argument now

Posted Images

On 1/28/2020 at 11:46 AM, Attilaforfun said:

I hear ya. I just watched some Russians pull a T34 out of a swamp. Cleaned it up and got it running. Maybe the video was here. I was really impressed. On the flip side I've got a 73 Steyr Pinzgauer (Austrian not German engineering...former Swiss Army) that fires up and tears up the WY countryside every Spring. Zero maint. Not bad for a nearly 50 year old German(ic) military vehicle.  

Check out the video of some Russians getting an SU-152 moving. It was sitting for who knows how long and they worked on it until it started and moved!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 4:03 PM, markus544 said:

Is it not true that the Soviet arms industry usually cranks out poorly put together weapons of war. 

I agree. That's why I keep saying that no country was better prepared for war than Soviet-Russia. Let's not forget the Germans rebuild their war industry in less  than 8 years. Stalin had almost 20 years to prepare for a war he tried to promote in every possible way and hoped to profit from for his own dark plans. And in that period his secret service gathered almost every defence secret in the US, Britain, Germany and the rest of the world. The development of Russian weapons benefitted greatly from that. Apart from that Stalin invested huge sums of money in the Soviet armed forces and war industry, while his country suffered under terror and poverty.

Hey, wait a minute. That sounds familiair! 🤨

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to post
Share on other sites

And then Stalin did everything possible to wreck that huge military.  Killed all the officers.  Forced them to defend dense, highly vulnerable forward lines.  Continually gave idiot "no retreat" and "attack at once" orders with no idea what he was doing.  So Soviet Union should have been ready for war, but losing 3.3 million men in three months rather says something different.

If Stalin hadn't killed most of his officers and if the armed forces were used with even marginal competence, then Germany would've been lucky to get to Smolensk. The Russians had numbers but were controlled by an utterly anti-competent lunatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I agree. That's why I keep saying that no country was better prepared for war than Soviet-Russia. Let's not forget the Germans rebuild their war industry in less  than 8 years. Stalin had almost 20 years to prepare for a war he tried to promote in every possible way and hoped to profit from for his own dark plans. And in that period his secret service gathered almost every defence secret in the US, Britain, Germany and the rest of the world. The development of Russian weapons benefitted greatly from that. Apart from that Stalin invested huge sums of money in the Soviet armed forces and war industry, while his country suffered under terror and poverty.

Hey, wait a minute. That sounds familiair! 🤨

I think Stalin gets too much praise, these days. He was a better train-thief than strategists. You only have to look at his service record in the Russian Civil War to see nothing but failures -- all of which he blamed on battle-tested veterans of WW1. Which brings me to why the Soviet Union was not prepared for WW2:

a. The Purges. He murdered a great deal of battle-tested veterans of WW1 in junior and senior rank. Their experience wouldn't only have been invaluable in WW2, but also a political, and possibly personal, slight to Stalin.

b. The ignorance of intelligence on Barbarossa. Richard Sorge famously reported that Germany had plans for an invasion, and Japan did not. The most fit troops of the Red Army were on the other side of the continent, when Barbarossa commenced. 

c. Overproduction. Stalin's Plan was obsessed with quantities. The huge number of BT-7s and T-26s at the start of Barbarossa are but one symptom of this. To him, it was better to produce more obsolete units, than less current units.

Barbarossa was launched precisely when the Red Army, in the west, was at its weakest. Their losses in Finland were only further proof. The OKH saw Barbarossa as a sure bet -- otherwise, they wouldn't have thrown themselves off the proverbial cliff.

This being said, the Red Army was ready for war with Japan. The Japanese border probing only yielded defeats, and Japan did not throw themselves off of that proverbial cliff. They decided to go to Hawaii for that one. The swiftness of the latter Manchurian campaign is only further proof of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all - Stalin deserves no praise. He is in the same league of mass murderers as Hitler.  In addition to the murder, imprisonment and degradation of nearly all of his military leaders in the 1930s, in 1929 Stalin launched his policy of agricultural collectivization—in effect a second Russian revolution—which forced millions of peasants off their land and onto collective farms. The result was a catastrophic famine, the most lethal in European history. At least five million people died between 1931 and 1933 in the USSR. Ask a Ukrainian about that history sometime.

Let's also not forget that without Stalin's agreement with Hitler to partition Eastern Europe (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), there would have been no Polish invasion in September 1939.

7 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

c. Overproduction. Stalin's Plan was obsessed with quantities. The huge number of BT-7s and T-26s at the start of Barbarossa are but one symptom of this. To him, it was better to produce more obsolete units, than less current units.

Check out the capabilities of the BT-7 and T-26 tanks compared to the majority of German tanks that began Barbarossa - they are at least comparable to the the PzKpfw IIs, IIIs, 35(t)s, and 38(t)s that made up the overall majority of the German panzer force at the time (while outnumbering them many times over). If you look further, you will find that the number of Soviet T-34s and KV tanks significantly outnumbered the number of German PzKpfw IVs (Germany's heaviest tank), with which the Wehrmacht that started the Barbarossa campaign. So I don't know if it is accurate to say that the Soviets had "obsolete" armor at the start of Barbarossa.

30 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Barbarossa was launched precisely when the Red Army, in the west, was at its weakest. Their losses in Finland were only further proof. The OKH saw Barbarossa as a sure bet -- otherwise, they wouldn't have thrown themselves off the proverbial cliff.

Actually, the Soviets in the western districts were right in the middle of upgrading all of their units - they would have been weaker a year earlier. A number of T-34 tanks, for example, were captured while still on rail cars (heading west). Also, not sure OKH saw Barbarossa as a sure bet - although it is certainly a fact that the Germans had terrible intelligence about Soviet capabilities and resilience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting question is that why and how did Stalin get to power and take over the SU when apparently he was a disaster.  Did nobody notice?  Or are we victims of western revisionism?   (Have been watching some of the TV shows and docs about the UK Royal family and one can see a huge whitewash and rewriting of history in progress - so am tending to question what we are being told these days.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

f Stalin hadn't killed most of his officers and if the armed forces were used with even marginal competence, then Germany would've been lucky to get to Smolensk. The Russians had numbers but were controlled by an utterly anti-competent lunatic.

Lunatic indeed. But Stalin was no fool. His plan to push Britain, France and Germany into another bloodbath worked, but wasn't followed by another trenchwar, so he could attack Germany in the back. That's why Stalin for a large part is responsible for WW 2. He easily could have made an alliance with France and Britain, but he tried to be smart.

And without those numbers you mention, build up in 20 years of preparation for total war, the Red Army could/would have been beaten. That's the point many Russians are making now. Without Stalin's terror Russia would have been wiped out.

1 hour ago, BluecherForward said:

Actually, the Soviets in the western districts were right in the middle of upgrading all of their units - they would have been weaker a year earlier. A number of T-34 tanks, for example, were captured while still on rail cars (heading west). Also, not sure OKH saw Barbarossa as a sure bet - although it is certainly a fact that the Germans had terrible intelligence about Soviet capabilities and resilience.

In Hitler's view Germany didn't have any other choice than attack Stalin as soon as possible. I think the Germans knew more about the Red army and Russian industry than we are led to believe now. They had enough Baltic, Ukrainian and other spies working for the Abwehr, even in heavily guarded Russia itself. But Hitler knew he would never get a better opportunity than in the summer of 1941. It wasn't a blind gamble, it was an inevitable next step for him. Both Stalin and Hitler knew  that they were enemies to the death and it was just a question of who was forced to attack first. Stalin was prepared to attack in 1940, if the situation in the West developed into another WW 1-style trenchwar, but in 1941 he knew the Germans were coming for him. Smart fellow,  that Joseph Vissarionovich. .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erwin said:

The interesting question is that why and how did Stalin get to power and take over the SU when apparently he was a disaster.  Did nobody notice?  Or are we victims of western revisionism?   (Have been watching some of the TV shows and docs about the UK Royal family and one can see a huge whitewash and rewriting of history in progress - so am tending to question what we are being told these days.)

I could recommend a dozen books to try to change your opinion, but it seems as though you are not prepared to believe anything. So I guess my question is, why do you believe in the current efforts to rehabilitate Stalin? 

If I could recommend one book on this specific subject, however, it would be this one:

image.png.c6341489a2648fd0946dbd4a612cfd84.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

In Hitler's view Germany didn't have any other choice than attack Stalin as soon as possible. I think the Germans knew more about the Red army and Russian industry than we are led to believe now. They had enough Baltic, Ukrainian and other spies working for the Abwehr, even in heavily guarded Russia itself. But Hitler knew he would never get a better opportunity than in the summer of 1941. It wasn't a blind gamble, it was an inevitable next step for him. Both Stalin and Hitler knew  that they were enemies to the death and it was just a question of who was forced to attack first. Stalin was prepared to attack in 1940, if the situation in the West developed into another WW 1-style trenchwar, but in 1941 he knew the Germans were coming for him. Smart fellow,  that Joseph Vissarionovich. .

This is truly a great point Aragorn2002!

It goes along with a theory that I acquired somewhere along the way that nations usually do not embark on war out of a feeling of superiority, but out of fear of losing their relative advantage in relationship to a rival or rivals. Hitler's Barbarossa, the German execution of the Schlieffen plan in World War I, Israel's Six Day War, and Japan's 1941 Offensive, are some examples of this phenomenon off the top of my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BluecherForward said:

...you are not prepared to believe anything.

Huh?  I simply asked a question cos what was being said made no sense to me...  We all know that one side always deride their enemies (especially when they're dead)...  I was brought up and educated in school with the philosophy of "question everything".  These days it feels like the new millennial philosophy is "believe everything the media or internet tells you".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Reference the domestic US election of 2016.

Trying to compare Trump with Hitler or Stalin as some attempt to do is rather silly and says more about the intellect and sheltered life experience of those people than anything else.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Trying to compare Trump with Hitler or Stalin as some attempt to do is rather silly and says more about the intellect and sheltered life experience of those people than anything else.  

To the contrary, the rise of Trump offers valuable insights into the rise of authoritarianism, and how certain elements of a country's population can be made to practically crave it. To me it would be more dangerous not to notice and discuss the historical parallels. I don't think anyone is saying that Trump is or will ultimately be responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BluecherForward said:

Actually, the Soviets in the western districts were right in the middle of upgrading all of their units - they would have been weaker a year earlier. A number of T-34 tanks, for example, were captured while still on rail cars (heading west).

It was a fairly opportune time. Indeed, they were in the middle of upgrading. New tank units had not been giving any significant spare parts, training or even equipment (radios, in particular). Such was the preparedness of these forces -- that T-34s were not yet issued to anyone. Pilots had not yet had the flight time to fly their planes. The decision to invade was still made half a year prior. It took some time to get the pieces in place. With proper intelligence and efficient planning, could they have done it sooner? Possibly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...