Unarmed Soviet conscript squads, prime for the wave attack

[The Commissar]

In regards to my sources:

Most of these are from various personal accounts, spread out through different books and even several websites. I realise that some of these might be biased (Germans wishing to justify their crushing defeat). I will try to look for exact websites when I get the chance to (writing from school lunch break).

Skipper,

You claim "myth" to much of these occurances, but you dont sound sure yourself. As far as I know, and I will admit that it is less the I would have liked to know, in the early days of the Ostfront, the USSR did not have the means to properly train and equipt troops. Once again, I will try to get some info once I return from school and work. I also cannot read German, so I've no idea what the poster you posted says, although Im guessing its some sort of propaganda?

Jeff,

You totally miss the point. If implemented, these conscripts would cost so little that a very large amount could be bought for blocking purposes.

Say you have a German platoon in good terrain, overlooking the map, and I feel I need to take it out no matter what (keep in mind, this is just for examplary purposes). In front of this position is a lot of open space, and lets imagine I have no other assets besides infantry. Maybe I wasted them, maybe they just were not available.

Now say that I have a batallion of these unarmed conscripts, with the whole thing costing me some 200 points ( :eek: ). Along with this, I have other infantry, armed, relatively well trained, etc. The terrain around this position of yours is supposedly poor, so fighting it out would result in me losing. So I rush out this coscript batallion, with the armed ones in behind. The AI franticly shoots the uncoming masses, who may or may not survive this attack. Meanwhile, my real fighting men get in up close and personal and maybe manage to overpower you.

Thats the whole point.

Just clarifications on my part, keep up the discussion guys.

[Skipper]

> And personally I'd rather hold on to

> *something* looking like a weapon (for

> morale)

To a worthless piece of wood that weighs 10 kilos? That is a dummy rifle??? FOR MORALE?????? Please, oh please tell me that you are kidding me.

See, these people who had to do that were not children. And the whole thing was a damn serious life and death affair.

Actually, the worst such cases I know of were "opolchenie" units, in 1941. These were volunteer units formed from people not eligible for a draft. Same idea as German Volksturm. They were armed with whatever was at hand, some squads indeed had one rifle per two men, and they were supposed to build field fortifications and cover unimportant positions. Of course, in the days of armored warfare what was supposed to be a secondary position could (and did) easily become a target of a heavy assault.

[Abbott]

Sounds like a waste of time to me. I would much prefer more common/usable units to be included.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Jeff,

You totally miss the point. If implemented, these conscripts would cost so little that a very large amount could be bought for blocking purposes.

Say you have a German platoon in good terrain, overlooking the map, and I feel I need to take it out no matter what (keep in mind, this is just for examplary purposes). In front of this position is a lot of open space, and lets imagine I have no other assets besides infantry. Maybe I wasted them, maybe they just were not available.

Now say that I have a batallion of these unarmed conscripts, with the whole thing costing me some 200 points ( :eek: ). Along with this, I have other infantry, armed, relatively well trained, etc. The terrain around this position of yours is supposedly poor, so fighting it out would result in me losing. So I rush out this coscript batallion, with the armed ones in behind. The AI franticly shoots the uncoming masses, who may or may not survive this attack. Meanwhile, my real fighting men get in up close and personal and maybe manage to overpower you.

Thats the whole point.

Just clarifications on my part, keep up the discussion guys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think you are missing the point!

If I was in that position I would say

"Gee, what a stupid scenario. Let's play something else."

That is the same thing I say when someone wants me to play a QB where they get to be crack SS Storm Troopers and I get to be green US jeep drivers.

Jeff Heidman

[Skipper]

The poster says "a man of lower race".

> Skipper,

> You claim "myth" to much of these

> occurances, but you dont sound sure

> yourself.

I am sure, however. Dr. Goebbels's outfit created some amazingly long lasting myths.

> in the early days of the Ostfront, the

> USSR did not have the means to properly

> train and equipt troops.

Correct. Summer '41 battle was an epic disaster for RKKA. The regular army, with all its hardware and supplies was nearly wiped out (mostly, taken POWs in operational encirclements, and NOT mowed down by machine guns in human wave attacks). And after that disaster these draftees (ie, those whom you call "untrained civilians") went on to win the war.

See, the big difference between "untrained civilians" as you know them, and soviet population of 1930s was that nearly all of those people went through two years of conscript service before the war. Which was not considerably smaller amount of training than 2 years of professional service in a modern army.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Picture scanned, but it was to blurry to read all I could see is "Russische Gewährattrappe". Bummer.

Anyway, back to the question at hand. A dummy rifle would certainly not weigh 10kg, perhaps 2-3kg would be more likely.

And no Skipper, I was not kidding you.

If I was to be sent rushing towards an enemy and got to choose wheather to carry nothing or a dummy rifle, I would choose the dummy rifle. Think about it.

If nothing else we can agree to disagree

[Jarmo]

About the dummy rifles:

I don't know if they were used in attacks or not, but I would imagine it'd be better to have them than to not have them.

If you're a german soldier, you can immediately spot and shoot the "dangerous russian" if the others are empty handed. But if the others also hold something that looks like a rifle, you'll just have to shoot someone. Important to remember that not all germans were armed with MG42's, there were quite a few bolt-locks around too..

To discredit the claim, I know finns had dummy rifles that made a "clak" sound, but those were only for training purposes. Better than a stick of wood or nothing, and better than breaking a valuable gun.

Nowadays we get real rifles to train with. Although we don't always get blank ammo, but instead have to yell: "bang! bang!" or "Laukaus! Laukaus!". The progress is an amazing thing.

[Skipper]

> A dummy rifle would certainly not weigh

> 10kg, perhaps 2-3kg would be more likely.

The one I had in mind was made to weigh like a real thing. Ie, about 10 kg.

> If I was to be sent rushing towards an

> enemy and got to choose wheather to carry

> nothing or a dummy rifle, I would choose

> the dummy rifle.

You'd prefer to die tired? As I said, I've seen a photo of an improvised pike, with that you could at least kill somebody.

Anyway, here is my point. The "dummy rifle" was produced in wholesale quantities and used country-wide for training of secondary school pupils and I dont know who else. I have never heard of it being issued to frontline troops as a substitute for the real thing. I very seriously doubt that anyone in his right mind would give it to anyone for morale boosting - as far as russian psychology is concerned, the effect would be distinctly opposite. To me this is plain obvious (I am a russian). Reinforcements were sent to unit formation areas in marching companies, normally without any weapons. Sometimes, they were sent with hand weapons but without ammo.

[Skipper]

Jarmo, I can kinda figure out what "bang!" means in Finnish (I guess, that makes me quite a polyglot ). But what is "laukaus"? :confused:

[Terence]

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

[QB]>

I very seriously doubt that anyone in his right mind would give it to anyone for morale boosting - as far as russian psychology is concerned, the effect would be distinctly opposite. To me this is plain obvious (I am a russian). QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you have to be Russian to be demoralized when your army gives you a toy gun and tells you to attack a German position.

I think that, allowing for any amount of cultural differences or whatever, that this kind of thing would be universally demoralizing.

[Skipper]

Ahem... I guess so! I would rather tell the guy "get yourself whatever yuo can, and if anyone falls, pick his rifle". Instead of handing him a dummy rifle to "boost his morale".

[Jarmo]

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

But what is "laukaus"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like yelling "A shot!", or "bang"

[Tiger]

Actually Skipper Rauss and the other authors acknowledge quite a few things the Russians did well and the many things they were impressed with, as well as their faults, in the Germans' view. I have the impression that the German officers and soldiers had quite a bit of respect and wariness for their Russian foes. There's certainly no mention of noble german knights defending gallantly to the end against hordes of Russians, though I see how you mentioning this would make my post seem easily brushed aside as non-sense.

Then you go on to quibble with the translator's words. I'm sure one Russian's "voluntary conscription" is another man's "being rounded up". A word game that can be played ad-infinum.

What posting a propaganda poster and saying "yeah and they'd all look like this" gets you I'm not sure. Sympathy? Guilt trip for anyone that disagrees with you? Maybe you were trying to show some propaganda to infer that everything negative said or written about the Soviets in WWII was just propaganda. Something nobody who relies on historical fact will agree with.

I think your arguments have little merit and rely more on your personal Russian ehtnocentricity than an actual unbiased viewpoint. I am reminded about a similiar post about Finland and the Winter War you did this in as well, even when you were shown to be in error.

If there is any historical basis for including such conscripts then undoubtedly BTS will include such units, if they deem it a necessary part of their game, regardless of the nationalistic pride or bias shown on this forum for either side(s).

-Tiger

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Tiger ]

[Terence]

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

Ahem... I guess so! I would rather tell the guy "get yourself whatever yuo can, and if anyone falls, pick his rifle". Instead of handing him a dummy rifle to "boost his morale".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. If the point is to give the guy a club, well, you don't have to make a dummy rifle to do that.

I have to say, I see a Pernicious Conspiracy at work here.

Perhaps its a leftover from the Cold War, perhaps it is distant cousin to the Massive Right Wing conspiracy that Hillary Clinton alleged was working against her husband our former president.

But I see it at work, by Odin.

And it vexes me.

The conspiracy is to dehumanize the Soviet soldier and make him appear to be a beast, devoid of human emotions or feelings and even worse, devoid of higher intellect and intelligence. It was not so. These were desperate times and desperate men took predictably desperate measures.

But I digress. Back to the Pernicious Conspiracy.

In service to this Dark and Evil Goal the members of this Conspiracy further make rare human wave attacks seem to be common-place events. This nonsense with the toy rifles is an other manifestation of this dread cult.

In this way the Conspirators were able to justify any measure taken against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and apparently they are still with us.

Let us rise up together and throw off the bonds with which this Shadowy Nemesis attempts to ensnare us.

[Straif]

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

"Liberation" vs "conquest" was an official classification, used for example to name combat medals. Thus, there was a medal for "Liberation of Warshaw", but a medal "For conquest of Berlin".

Criteria for "liberation" was that pre-war the place belonged to USSR or a country that was not officially at war with USSR prior to its "liberation".

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no city called "Warshaw". If you are thinking about Warsaw or Warszawa, then I must inform you that Poland was attacked by Soviets in September 1939.

Additionally, there was no Warsaw in the end of 1944, therefore it is difficult to talk about "liberation". Warsaw was totaly destroyed by Germans after Warsaw Uprising (with silent approval of Soviets, who patiently waited on the east border of Vistula River).

Straif

[Skipper]

Yes, guys, I am biased. As I said in the already mentioned Winter War thread, iirc, I have a special passion for statements like the one this thread was started with:

> When you look at the numbers, the Soviets

> kicked the Germans out of Russia because

> they had more bodies to feed the inferno,

> not because of superior doctrine

> or "tactics".

> "voluntary conscription"

Please, insert some kind of separation between voluntary and conscription. iirc, I did it in my posts. Which ever way people from liberated soviet towns ended up in the army, these people were not "civiians" to any larger extent than the guys who died fighting for their town a few days before.

Now, let's say you are an american. And I will tell you that young american guys in late 40-s were "rounded up" and sent to Korea for a nearly certain death. What would your reaction be? "Unbiased"?

> I am reminded about a similiar post about

> Finland and the Winter War you did this in

> as well, even when you were shown to be in

> error

... on some (but not all) points, I just recognised that. Refer you to that thread.

> "yeah and they'd all look like this"

I just thought that this face would suit such "dummy rifle troops", if, God forbid, they find their way into CM2 engine. No guilt trip, anyone, please.

> The conspiracy is to dehumanize the Soviet

> soldier

If you are a smart guy, you'd recognize that urban legends dont need a conspiracy to live for centuries. Heck, most of what we know as "history of the ancient ages" is a bunch of such legends to a large extent. I just dont like when these legends sum up to, as you put it, "dehumanizing the Soviet soldier". It's not right.

So, I know a few facts about the war in Russia, I read memoirs from both sides, I try to recognize "fisherman stories" for what they are (from the recently read stuff Rudel's memoir comes to mind as an excellent example), and yeah, I am biased against certain urban legends.

PS I wonder how big a flame war would it be if I start re-telling soviet memoirs written in the same "fisherman story" genre? And I am not talking about 1990-s memoirs and interviews that you read on history.vif2.ru. Rather, the ones that were published by Political Department of the Soviet Defence Ministry. Starting right from Breznev's "Malaya Zemlya", which I enjoyed re-reading just last week on the Net. Only for point to point comarison sake. I would note in my defence that I abstain from doing that.

[Skipper]

>then I must inform you that Poland was

>attacked by Soviets in September 1939.

Somehow, the medal was called "for liberation", iirc. I guess, there was no official war declaration between USSR and Poland in 1939 (?)

I must also remind you that several divisions of poles participated in the above mentioned "liberation" alongside the soviet troops.

[Straif]

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

Somehow, the medal was called "for liberation", iirc. I guess, there was no official war declaration between USSR and Poland in 1939 (?)

I must also remind you that several divisions of poles participated in the above mentioned "liberation" alongside the soviet troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is long story and out of topic in this forum.

But if I must tell that you are good discutant Skipper, and is pleasure to read this thread, even if I not always agree with your position.

All this CMBO crowd is so civilized well informed and so different than on most other internet forums.

Keep it this way guys, too bad I didn't started to read it earlier.

Straif

[Andrew H.]

In May 1940, when Holland surrendered to Germany, the US Army went from being the 17th largest army in the world to the 16th largest army in the world.

As a consequence of having such a small peacetime army, some US soldiers underwent part of their training with dummy wooden rifles (probably safer anyway) when the US began to mobilize en masse. Rifles were needed for the fighting troops, and do take some time to produce. Some trainees, and even some frontline troops, were equipped with the bolt-action Springfields because there weren't enough Garands. I believe that the wooden soviet rifles were used for the same reason.

Although I've periodically run across references to unarmed conscripts ordered to pick up rifles from fallen comrades, I've only run across one description that had any detail in it, which makes me suspect that it may have happened once and the story was repeated until it appeared commonplace.

Anyway, the details of the unarmed conscript story as I remember it were as follows: very early in the war (like June or early July '41), the soviets mobilized to repel the fascist invader. "Mobilizing" meant that civilians were ordered to report to certain places -- often railroad stations -- where they would be taken to a training place and made into soldiers. Eligible civilians knew in advance where they were supposed to go if they were called up for mobilization, so when a radio announcement stated that all men between the ages of 18-21 were to report on date X, these men knew that they were supposed to be at specific locations on date X.

Unfortunately, the Germans advanced so quickly that on one occasion lots of conscripts arrived at a specific railroad station on date X, which happened to be the date that the Germans attacked the location containing the railroad station (I've forgotten the name of the town). On this occasion, the men in charge of collecting the conscripts picked them up, armed the ones that they could, and instructed the remainder to follow behind the armed men and pick up the rifles of the fallen.

This is the only detailed example of this tactic that I've run across, and it's instructive in a couple of ways. The first is that this procedure is not particularly inhumane. I mean, I wouldn't want to fight without a gun, but given that the only alternative was to fight (or surrender, I suppose), fighting is the best thing to do. At least you have something of a chance if there is a chance to pick up a rifle.

Second, this was not the result of some sort of deliberate plan instituted by Stavka; it was a local response to a location with a bunch of unarmed conscripts being attacked.

Remember, too, that the Soviets did not lack for industrial production -- they had 20,000 tanks at the beginning of the war,for example, and lots of other equipment as well. It's not like they made the decision not to produce rifles or something.

Finally, an important part of sov. doctrine was to have a large strategic reserve, and they made very good use of this reserve on several occasions. Thus, there were places for untrained soldiers to go other than the front line. This reinforces the conclusion that using unarmed conscripts in battle was an unusual and not particularly favored tactic.

And then did send in the conscripts *second*.

[Skipper]

> It is long story and out of topic in this forum.

CM2 is supposedly about the Hitler's ill-fated russian adventure. If BTS dont include Voisko Polskoye (sp?) in the game, i don't know why did they include french (or for that matter polish) troops in CM.

Ie, it is not an off-topic. Dare I say, not more off-topic than all the PENG THREADS So, if there is a long story, why dont you tell it?

[tss]

Skipper wrote:

but what is "laukaus"?

Like Jarmo just wrote, it means "a shot" (as in someone just fired his gun). Those with LMGs or SMGs can also shout "sarja, sarrrrrja" ("a burst") but they will be accused of wasting ammunition if they do it too much.

BTW. I checked my sources. The one Finnish occasion of sending unarmed men to combat that I wrote about was, indeed, the Patoniemi counter attack but I remembered the unit incorrectly (batallion was right but company wrong). It was actually liutenant Linnaterä's 2./JR 30 instead of Jylhä's 1./JR 30. (Though it is possible that Jylhä had also some of those unarmed recruits).

- Tommi

[Skipper]

> they had 20,000 tanks at the beginning of

> the war,for example, and lots of other

> equipment as well.

And yet there was a severe shortage of heavy weapons in late 1941 (how about a newly formed infantry division with just 20 artillery tubes of 45 and 76 mm caliber?). Then, by 1942 there was a severe shortage of hand weapons. Only in late 1942 soviet weapon production kicked in and was able to supply the army with what it needed.Which is "a separate long story" ©.

As I said, most of the regular army with most of the stuff was lost in the first few months of Barbarossa. Moreover, about half of the heavy industry was either lost or had to be relocated to Urals. Can you imagine relocating a tank factory for 3000 km and starting production in the new places within two months? On arrival they'd live in tents and assemble their machinery on open ground.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know a few facts about the war in Russia, I read memoirs from both sides, I try to recognize "fisherman stories" for what they are (from the recently read stuff Rudel's memoir comes to mind as an excellent example), and yeah, I am biased against certain urban legends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seriously doubt you have read the book in question, for if you had you'd realize how ignorant your rhetoric sounds. Most all of the accounts show the Soviet as an able and competent soldier with emphasis on the political situation as well as climate and the supply situation, along with a myriad of other factors that influence the effectiveness of all soldiers and their leadership, not just Soviets and Germans. Indeed, the memoirs are almost lavish in their praise for the quality of the Soviet soldier and Soviet leadership abilities. However, unlike Skipper, they take the good with the bad, not just all pro-Soviet. It is a fairly measured assesment with some inherent German bias though you can tell the writers were trying to be as unbiased as possible. Certainly they're not trying to exaggerate the Soviet colossus so as to have an excuse as to why they lost, quite the opposite.

Bottom line is you can not discount anything you dislike as mere "urban legend" simply to suit your own bias. Take the good with the bad and you'll do ok. That said I do not doubt there are myths that plague all sides of this great conflict.

I think Skipper's method of stating his case is flawed and employees rhetoric and propaganda to undermine anyone who argues against him. You use your own urban legends to support your position.

As a person of Polish descent I take offense that you imply "several divisions of Poles" helped the Soviets invade their own country in 1939. No doubt in the same vein of "volunteer" communist Finns who helped the Soviets invade Finland during the Winter War.

-Tiger

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Tiger ]

[killmore]

You keep giving examples of "unarmed attacks" taken from German propaganda.

Remember thats the way germans wanted to show Soviets - like a mad horde.

I doubt these were common. Some "volunteers" from GULAGs could have been unarmed. I doubt this was common as german propaganda wants you to think.

Soviet losses would be much worse is such attacks were common throught the war!

I read of volunteers without any commanding officer attacking german tanks at night with molotovs and no weapons. But it was their choice - they were partizans.

[killmore]

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

There is no city called "Warshaw". If you are thinking about Warsaw or Warszawa, then I must inform you that Poland was attacked by Soviets in September 1939.

Straif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poland was not attacked by Soviet Union in 1939. There was no armed conflict. Soviet union entered/occupied Polish teritory when the war was already lost to Germans in a quick territory grab.

My grandfather lead 300 soldiers escaping to Rumania. He was spotted by soviet planes which did not attack them. He ordered troops to quickly move to another area. Shortly after german planes showed up and bombed the area where the troops were originally.

So Soviet Union avoided conflict with Polish troops but was providing information to the Germans.

One more thing. Soviet Union was attacked by Poland in 1921! Polish troops got As far in as Kiev.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: killmore ]