East Front and Your Obsessions

[0311]

This is not to be taken the wrong way I am really curious ? Why does the majority of the board favor the East front?

I would much rather see Pacific action and island hopping campaigns against the Japenese in the jungles.

[Guest tom w]

I don't really favour the eastern front but I think perhaps some others do because of the opportunity to model some really interesting tank battles. The Russian vs. German tanks battles are infamous for being worthy of replay and disection and analysis

over and over again.

I'm happy with what we have on our plates now....

WWII post D-Day ETO perfect!

(as some one mentioned, ALL the cool toys)

The rest can wait...

be happy with what is offered I'm sure it was a HUGE effort just to get this one off the ground.

-tom w

[Guest Blacksilver]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 0311:

Why does the majority of the board favor the East front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a word . . .

S T A L I N G R A D ! ! !

(Actually, Tom W is right. It's the tank thing.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would much rather see Pacific action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me, too , but if I can't get Bloody Nose Ridge I'll take the Barrikady Tractor Factory.

------------------

Blacksilver

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>History is a vast early warning system.

-Norman Cousins<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest MantaRay]

Well, aside for it being a long way off for even CM2, I dont see why we shouldnt have both, except that Steve has said that it isnt on the plate for war against the Japanese. I for one hope BTS eventually does something on the subject, but only time will tell.

Ray

------------------

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tank thing is part of it. Terrain thing, weather thing, and fluidity thing can also be added to that list Also, the "clash of the titans" thing is also very strong reason. There was no single conflict in history as large and varried as the Eastern Front.

Terrain covers everything from practically sandy desert all the way to frozen tundra and everything inbetween.

Weather was brutal and had a tempature difference of roughly 170 degrees F between various areas/seasons.

The number of epic battles, that went back and forth, stagger the mind. From pocket battles in the woods of the north to huge urban slugfests like Stalingrad and Kharkov.

The sides were, for the most part, balanced throughout the war. The quality of the Soviet infantry was very good, even if not well led. And of course the armor match ups are legandary.

This is why the Eastern Front is such a rich topic.

Steve

[przy]

Could'nt say it any better, Steve!

[ianc]

"There was no single conflict in history as large and varied as the Eastern Front."

As Steve suggests, the very scope of the struggle is cause for fascination.

It's also the contrasts in the combatants:

The Few vs. the Many

Civilization (?!) vs. Barbarism?

Communism vs. Western Industrialism

Quality vs. Quantity

East vs. West

It's the first that is perhaps most compelling to me as an inveterate Axis player. The necessity to accomplish more with less as the Germans is an inspiring motive for most anything. There doesn't seem much honor in simply overwhelming an opponent...

Admittedly, a background in engineering fosters a certain fascination with the studied (in the face of disaster!) elegance and efficiency of their machines as well!

ianc

[ianc]

"I built all of the Monogram kits, including three kits of their StuG. They actually scaled out to 1/32nd, but they were pretty nice, considering how old they were. I used to stare at Shep Paine's diorama work for hours- he did all the dio's in the Monogram literature. My fave was the knocked out PzIV in Afrika Korps markings,all burned out with the engine and turret hatches all opened up."

I built quite a few of them as well. They WERE actually 1/32, as compared to Tamiya's 1/35. I remember the Sherman Calliope, the Mk. IV, the Stug. IV, the Brummbar and the Grant. All from 2 sets of running gear, eh? Almost as good as the models were the little included pamphlets with tips and photos from Shep Paine! I kept those for longer than the models!

ianc

[ianc]

Oops, the above pasted into the wrong window. Should have been posted to 'Tanks in the basement'.

Forgive me dears?

ianc

[Mark IV]

Heading dangerously O/T here, but I think "Communism vs. Fascism" is more accurate. As a western industrialist myself, I think that the prevailing way of life in the US and UK, et al, was far more representative of "western industrialism" than the Third Reich.

The clash of the "isms"- in fact, their literal duel to the death, is a BIG part of the fascination with the Drang nach Osten/Great Patriotic War Against Fascism.

Racist belief in the Volk, vs. Marxist belief in the elimination of class (one appealing to the worst in human nature, one believing that human nature can be engineered) resembles a Godzilla movie with bizarre, unnatural behemoths locked in mortal combat.

The western industrial democracies have an inherent belief in the rule of law, and aren't truly represented by either Nazis or communists. There was plenty of "western" industrial technology in Soviet Russia, BTW.

The Japanese, by contrast, were belatedly striving to achieve an essentially 19th century colonialist empire.

Fascism, communism, capitalism, and colonialism (all served with a heavy sauce of nationalism)- is it any wonder this war fascinates? And of these, the two most "modern", extreme, and well-equipped ideologies fought on the Eastern Front, without compromise.

[tss]

ianc wrote:

The Few vs. the Many

It is a quite persistent myth that Soviets won because they had large (about 10-fold) superiority in manpower.

The truth, however, is that from beginning of July '41 to December '41 _GERMANS_ had numerical superiority at front. Yes, the total number of Red Army soldiers was bigger in '41, but at any single time point Germans had more men available than Soviets as Soviets didn't have time to concentrate the reinforcements.

In December '41 the Red Army finally got its act together and managed to achieve operational superiority of 3:2. That is, for each two Germans at front, there were three Soviets. This ratio remained more or less constant until late '44 when Soviets achieved 2:1 superiority. (Note that during the Stalingrad battle Germans had 2:1 superiority in the city itself).

Even though the total operational superiority was not too great, Soviets were really good in concentrating forces. They would strip men from large sections of front to achieve 10:1 or higher odds at the spearpoint of the attack. So, in the most parts of the front Soviets had clear numerical disadvantage, but they enough men where the important battles were fought. For example, during most of the war there were only 150000 Soviets facing 350000 Finns and 100000 Germans North of Leningrad.

Civilization (?!) vs. Barbarism?

I'd be interested to know which one was which. In my terms both sides were pretty barbaric, with Germans being worse.

- Tommi

[Gespenster]

"I'd be interested to know which one was which. In my terms both sides were pretty barbaric, with Germans being worse."

I would have to disagree with this statement ... while I do agree that both sides committed horrid acts against one another ... The Russians were much more brutal to the German Soldiers they captured ... I've done alot of reasearch on the Eastern front, and seen enough evidence of Russian/German War crimes, including MANY photos just recently released (within the last 5 years) by the former Soviet Union of VERY graphic examples of torture and execution by Russian troops against German Troops including the cutting off of noses, beatings, castration, and just about every concievable atrocity that ones mind could generate ... Now don't get me wrong, the Germans were not "Choir Boys" by any stretch of the imagination ... but in answering the question of "which side was worse" I'd say at the very least they were probably equally guilty of atrocities against one another with the Russians having a slight edge in the brutality department ... and Don't forget that the Russians committed many horrible atrocities against thier own people as well ... especially during the early stages of the conflict ... with these kind of atrocities going on, it's easy to see why the hatred stewed on both sides ... in my opinion the Eastern Front of WWII was probably the most brutal campaign in the history of Warfare, hence another reason why so many people are facinated by it ...

~G

[Username]

Read:

WAR on the EASTERN FRONT

The German Soldier in Russia 1941-1945

James Lucas

The eastern front was like the wild west. It was wide open and brutal. Tank warfare evolved to its most refined state. Airpower did not completely swing to supremacy for very long for either side. Encirclement warfare with prisoners numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Two nations with leaders both totally ruthless if not psychotic. It was racist, idealogical total war.

What more you want?

Lewis

[Gespenster]

My point exactly Lewis ... just plain nasty.

~G

[tss]

I think that German brutality was worse because it was an official policy sanctioned by the government. Hitler issued an order stating that no German soldier would be punished for any crime committed against civilians in the East Front. Hitler organized special units with the sole purpose of killing all undesirables in the conquered areas.

Soviet brutality was on more individual level and the crimes were not ordered from above. Sure, there were commanders who looked the other way when their subordinates started "having fun", but others took active measures to prevent them. In 1945, over 10000 Soviet soldiers were executed for raping and pillaging. Not a single German was court-martialled for that.

In the end, some 18 million Soviet civilians were killed compared with less than 2 million dead German civilians.

I would say that most soldiers on both sides were decent men and only a minority committed atrocities. The difference was that a German could do pretty much anything without having to fear punishment while a Soviet soldier risked his life doing them.

Sure, many or most Soviet offenders got away with no punishments. Men like Alexandr Smirnov are still respected war heroes. (Smirnov led an attack against a Finnish village killing all inhabitants and claimed in his report that he had destroyed a major German supply base and killed 30 soldiers. In reality, there was only one soldier in the village and he was on a leave from the front).

- Tommi

[PanzerLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For example, during most of the war there were only 150000 Soviets facing 350000 Finns and 100000 Germans North of Leningrad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

North of Leningrad? No Germans troops there...Or do you mean by extension the Mountain Arctic Korps under Dietl? If so don't forget that the terrain in front of Murmansk and in that general area was very unfavourable to the attacker(lots of rivers, swamps, mountains, etc.)

A 3:2 superiority only in favour of the Soviets from Dec.41 to 1944 seems very astounding to me. In most books I've read it was stated that, by the beginning of Operation Zitadelle(summer 43), the Soviets had a numerical superiority of 6:1 in men(along the entire front and including operational reserves), about the same in tanks, and 10:1 in artillery. After that the gap must have increased even more.

And then how come the Soviets lost so many men if their numerical advantage was so small? Germans lost app.3 million men in Russia, the Russians lost app. 15 million in the military...Quite a difference. And yet the Soviets won. Quite a lot of manpower me thinks.

[Major Tom]

Nobody can say one side is worse than another in a situation as large and confused as that of fighting on the Eastern Front. Germans recieved orders from their highest command to initiate brutality, and so did the Russians. The murder of 4000 Polish officers in 1940 was done by an order from Stalin. So, the Germans were not alone in making this an officially brutal war. I am wondering where you got this information about Russian and German treatment of rapists. I have heard the exact reverse of your statement through many sources.

This is not a defence of the Germans, it is just an attempt to bring the Russians up to their actual historical rate of brutality, which greatly mirrored that of Germany.

[Guest Blacksilver]

I very much doubt the concept of "lesser of two evils" applies as between Stalin and Hitler. Absolute disregard of and contempt for the dignity and sanctity of the individual life was state policy in both regimes, and both carried out that policy to the best of their respective abilities.

The struggle on the Eastern Front (and Stalingrad in particular) is fascinating to me because it exemplifies, in a most extreme and intense manner, the utter, malevolent and collective madness that only 55 years ago threatened to swallow the world.

------------------

Blacksilver

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>History is a vast early warning system.

-Norman Cousins<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[killmore]

As far I I read recently the citadel was not very debalanced toward Soviet Union.

The largest advantage Soviets had in numbers of artilery.

I have seen lots of numbers quoting 2:3 toward russians. Definitly not 1:6.

And I believe the citadels tank battle had 700 German tanks and 750 Soviet. Definitly not 6:1. ( I have seen such numbers quoted repetedly)

Result was that Germany lost 300 tanks Soviets 350.

Please gimme more accurate numbers if you have them. I would love to see them if I can.

I also strongly object to Soviet being calls barbarians.

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 05-05-2000).]

[crossfire]

Barbarism comment:

Much more soviet civiliast were killed by Germans then German civilians by Soviets.

This can include post war years if you insist.

[killmore]

I wonder if playing with Japanese tanks against shermans feels worse then playing with shermans against King tigers.

On the east front equipment capabilities were more balanced.

[killmore]

Quoting smbutler:

They played a sound bite from the Nuermburg trial of an English speaking SS officer talking (in a very matter of fact tone of voice) about one massacre. It went something like this: 'In the town of X we killed 80,000 of the inhabitants, give or take around 10,000. One can never get exact figures from these kinds of operations..."

Now thats barbarism.

[tss]

North of Leningrad? No Germans troops there...

I mean the whole strecth of front from the Gulf of Finland to Arctic Sea.

If so don't forget that the terrain in front of Murmansk and in that general area was very unfavourable to the attacker

I don't forget. Soviets didn't endanger their front there when they stripped the forces. Especially when Finns had decided against any offensive actions. However, this also holds for the other direction. Germans could have transferred at least 30000 men to other fronts without endangering their own position. They didn't.

In most books I've read it was stated that, by the beginning of Operation Zitadelle(summer 43), the Soviets had a numerical superiority of 6:1 in men(along the entire front and including operational reserves),

Like I said, the overwhelming Soviet numerical superiority is a persistant myth. An incorrect figure is an incorrect figure no matter how many books have it.

I just dug out Krivosheev's book to check the figures. Actually, I noticed that I gave the wrong number for Soviet military losses since the correct number would have been 10 million, including the 4 million POWs.

Here are the average monthly strenghts of the Red Army during the war (the data is taken from actual reports by the units. It may or may not be accurate, but it is the same data that Stavka used to base decisions on):

1941: 3024900 men

1942: 5313600 men

1943: 6389200 men

1944: 6550000 men

1945: 6330880 men

I seriously doubt that Germans had only 1 million men prior to Kursk. In any case, you have to also count Finnish, Rumanian, and Hungarian armies to the Axis total before counting the odds.

And then how come the Soviets lost so many men if their numerical advantage was so small?

Most of Soviet losses happened in 1941-42. In the six first months of the war Soviets lost 1/3 of their total irrecoverable losses (KIA, MIA) of the war. Those losses were truly horrible. Above I mentioned that Soviets had on average 3 million men in arms at any time in 1941. During that year, they lost almost 3 million KIA and POW and 1.3 million WIA. This means that they had 140% casualties in the first six months of the war.

This explains why Germans managed to have a numerical superiority at the front in 1941: they started with a superiority and they destroyed Soviet units as soon as they were formed. A total of some 6 million men went through Soviet ranks that year, but only 3 million were in arms at one time.

Here comes the tabulated losses of the Red Arm per year:

1941: 2993803 KIA/MIA 1314291 WIA

1942: 2993536 KIA/MIA 4087265 WIA

1943: 1977127 KIA/MIA 5506520 WIA

1944: 1412335 KIA/MIA 5090869 WIA

1945: 631633 KIA/MIA 2191748 WIA

Tot: 10008434 KIA/MIA 18190693 WIA

I personally think that the 1941 figure is quite inaccurate as July '41 was so total catastrophe to Soviets that accurate casualty reports were not possible. (The figure is also suspiciously close to '42 figure).

- Tommi

[Major Tom]

The history of Russia has been barbaric. In the 19th Century the first government sponsored Jewish Holocausts took place in Russia. The Russian Czars beat up on the Russian people just as much as the Soviet Government did.

Sure, you can say more Russians were killed by Germans, but, demographically there were more Russian civilians to kill than German Civilians. Also, at the end of the war they had a different plan than Hitler. Instead of settling in Germany they planned to control it as a puppet state. So, killing off the inhabatents was not in the best interest of Russia. Both sides were barbarous. Plus, there are many acts that we know nothing about perpetrated by both sides. Again, I am not defending Germany, just putting Russia in a different light. Also, 4 of the 5 years of the war was spent in Russian territory.

Type 95 Tank vs. Sherman. Well, I would have to say that a 75mm AP gun would knock the stuffings out of a 37mm AP gun. On Tarawa the Japanese found it difficult to defeat the Armour of a Sherman with 47mm AT guns. The Japanese armour is only effective against small arms fire. One instance of an entire Japanese Tank Company being wiped out by just two British 2 Pounder AT guns in Malaya shows their pathetic weakness to even obsolete weaponry. Just imagine a King Tiger vs. a Type 95 Tank!

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 05-05-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

On the ratio of forces... I think TSS outlined it very well. Overall, the Soviets did not have massive, overwhelming, numerical advantage. But since they had an advantage, and were on the defensive for most of their front, they could reduce the size of their force (say in Lenningrad) to have 1:2 in favor of the Germans (defensive battles require less troops) and take that 50,000 or 100,000 men and stick them someplace where they already had 3:2 advantage, thus raising it in their favor. The key here is that the Soviets had the flexibility to do this, the Germans not nearly as much.

As for barbarism... it is untrue that the Soviets didn't have policies for the ill treatment of captured German soldiers. No written orders were needed from Stalin (and I do not know that there were none) because there was a culture of brutality that acted on its own. There is no need to order your men to do something that they already were planning on doing in the first place. Kinda like not needing to issue an order for your men to fire their rifles or drive their tanks.

As for the civilian casualties... they can not be compared. Apples to Oranges. The Soviet Union was a battlefield for 3 full years, the territories of Germany for only a few months. And here is the critical difference. From 1941-1944 the Germans never saw an end to the conflict on the horizon. In 1945 the Soviets certainly did. They knew that peace was going to happen very soon and that they would have all the time in the world to hand out justice. If the Soviet Union thought it was in their best interests (boggles the mind to think how it could be...) they would have slaughtered millions. But in negotiations with the West over the borders, it was clearly NOT in their best interest. Stalin was a butcher for sure (10,000,0000 Ukranians would agree if they were still alive), but he was also a shrewd politician. He had his eyes fixed on a bigger prize -> control of Eastern Europe and Germany. And that is exactly what he got.

So which is more brutal? I'd say it is not possible to make a judgement call. Total body count probably a bit higher for the Germans overall (i.e. including the millions Stalin put to death before), but they did it in a shorter period of time in with greater degree of organization. But in terms of opression, every day non-lethal brutality, fear, etc. I think the SU gets the first prize for no other reason than the number of lives they affected over its lifetime.

Steve