What really happened to the Russians in 1941

[Hornpiper]

Thanks for the insult. Guess I need not bother posting anything else.

[molotov_billy]

Nothing about hornpiper's posts seemed troll-like to me. He's adding information to a discussion.

Sometime's I wonder if these discussions are here to solve a problem or to just 'win the argument.' I would really like to follow these discussions and learn a thing or two, but it really sucks to read through these things when a couple of specific people have no respect for others' opinions and have no intention to actually discuss and find new information on a topic.

Do people here realize that your credibility as a historian is lost if you flat out refute every other argument without hesitation? How can a person learn if you don't at least consider other sides of an argument with an open mind?

[ May 02, 2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[JasonC]

"Any talk of 'deep operations', or massed tank attack, with its echoes of Tukhachevsky, was by association deemed to be counter-revolutionary"

Purest horsefeathers. First, they invented the term. The main advocate of it was chief of the general staff. They ordered single operations on the southern front involving massed tank attacks by formations with up to 3000 AFVs, as large as the entire German fleet. It is just lying propagandistic crap trying to paint the Russians as hidebound idiots, the kind of thing German memoirs tried to peddle from the 50s to the 70s before anybody in the west had seriously seen Russian sources.

"A proletarian people's army stressing masses over technology"

Made up out of whole cloth, not the least tincture of fact. What actually happened is, they had as high concept a doctrine of modern mobile operations as you please, with formations designed for it. They attempted to impliment that doctrine, and the tools fell apart in the commander's hands. Whole tank corps evaporated within a week of contact, even those with the highest readiness, with 80% runners on the day of the invasion, almost fully manned, with 3000 trucks to a corps.

*After* they noticed that tank corps disappeared leaving great gapping holes in their plans and in their lines, the higher HQs began to rely on infantry armies rather than tank corps to deliver counterattacks or even conduct holding actions. Not because of any propagandistic bilge or concept failure anything. But because practical experience in the first month of the campaign proved to a demonstration that their mech arm was hopelessly broken and only the infantry formations could be relied on to still be on the map a week after an attack order.

This kind of argument was definitely shown to be utter nonsense as long ago as the 1980s. If you don't know it is empty propaganda, fine, you are regurgitating silliness without knowing it instead of while knowing it. Try reading the blessed thread, or anything that has paid any attention to actual Russian sources.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Losing trade with Russia did not worry Hitler; he planned to take what he needed. Supplying his economy with all the raw materials and labor needed for continued campaigns.

I doubt that he wasn't worried about industrial needs - a lot of Hitlers decisions in the war were down to his concern for obtaining/holding onto the neccessary raw materials. He gambled that he could defeat Russia quickly enough to compensate for the loss of imported resources.

As for the German war economy he did use the plunder of defeated countries to keep the wheels turning in the early days of the war (Czech armaments, Austrian and Czech gold, French cash etc.) But German industry was the driving force, not conquered resources.

[JasonC]

On German industry being what mattered, according to Milward the total contribution of occupied areas to the German war economy amounted to 7% of wartime output by value, comparable to the portion LL added to Russian output.

Occupied areas also supported troops quartered on them. Italy appears to have been a net drag, taking large quantities of German coal and using it less effectively than it was used in Germany.

As for labor, by the end 10% of the domestic workforce in German was foreign labor. This is in addition to the previous. Some was forced labor, but a significant portion was voluntary, paid labor (pay was higher in Germany). Productivity of forced labor was dramatically lower than German workers.

Exactions were only economical in the west, where financial methods were used. Particularly in France and the low countries. France supplied significant quantities of iron ore to the German steel industry, for example. In the Balkans, commercial trade methods gathered scarce raw materials (Rumanian oil, specialty metals) in return for German industrial exports.

In the east - Russia and Poland - forced contributions in kind were made instead. They never reached the level of pre war voluntary trade. Output in those areas collapsed, causing widespread famine borne by the civilian inhabitants. But the amounts leaving the area were the same or lower than surplus exports before the war, both by value and tonnage of grain.

Looting by the printing press worked in France, gathering scarce metals by looting foreign stockpiles worked to relieve particular bottlenecks and make efficient substitutions, and higher wartime standards of living in Germany than in the rest of occupied Europe attracted labor to take the place of missing Germans who were in the army.

All the rest was chaotic and ridiculously inefficient. Cameras are a better way to get grain out of the Ukraine than entire divisions with machineguns. The black market destroyed about three times as much value as it moved.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i totally respect (nay, i adore it) the desire to have discussion that aims at objectivity (and especially if it contains wild speculation as well), but now that the discussion appears to have waned, i'd like to point out that some of the strong claims made about the Soviet commanders + the desire to isolate the issue from greater context of WW2 (and even beyond) are very similar to the typical claims made in "nationalist flame wars" and Western Allied revisionism in general.

the basic stereotypical claim is that Germans weren't superior, that their some specific opponent was just criminally incompetent and truly inferior at that specific period of WW2. to say something else means that one is a simpleminded Nazi fanboy, clueless of actual realities of the art of war and totally ignorant of the many failures of the Germans.

here, on this thread, one is given the picture that Soviet commanders of the early war were criminally incompetent, the worst of the worst and that by standards they should have fared a lot better against the Germans and failed only because they were Galactically stupid. this is of course totally out of larger context and the realities as experienced at the day back then. it's not that the Soviet commanders were criminally incompetent and totally sub-STANDARD. they were not that much worse than the Poles, French, British etc, it's just that the Germans were truly superior by the standards of the day and they didn't fall much short from revolutionizing the application of operational art of war. no, the Soviets performed pretty much as was the standard of that day. of course that standard had to change fast under the evolutionary pressure caused by the Germans. and indeed it did change and by the end of the war the Soviets had become what the Germans were during the first half of the War.

just to put things in perspective even further, look at the later blunders (considered important victories by many Western Allied revisionist fanboys) of Western Allies, like the July 1944 Operation Goodwood. in Operation Goodwood the fresh 2nd Army attacks German lines, trying to push thru, the British VIII Corps with three armored divisions spearheading the attack (the largest British armored operation to still this very day?). the British have the numerical odds, and the armored arm of the VIII Corps is not just numbers on the paper but real armored divisions. and unlike the Soviets early in the war, the Western Allies by now have air superiority and huge air arm and thus the German lines receive unimaginable beating served by hundreds of heavy bombers and the like. what happens? you get the supply problems, you get the counter-productive anti-reality reports of victory, you get fatally wrong interpretation of intelligence data and most of all the British VIII Corps gets mauled pretty much like the Soviet Corps on this thread. the armored divisions of the VIII Corps lose about half of their tanks already on the first day of the operation and by the third day it's all over after having managed to advance seven miles. this while having numerical superiority and absolutely mindblowing air arm - both something the Soviets did not have. and of course it's 1944, so you don't have the "excuse" of early war unpreparedness etc and you don't have half of the tanks of your Corps breaking down already before the battle due to technical problems.

the reason why the Poles, the French, the British, the early Soviets etc, or even the Western Allies in 1944, had such vanishing Corps is not because they all would have been substandard: it was because their performance was standard while by the standards of the day the Germans were truly superior.

Prove it.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

the reason why the Poles, the French, the British, the early Soviets etc, or even the Western Allies in 1944, had such vanishing Corps is not because they all would have been substandard: it was because their performance was standard while by the standards of the day the Germans were truly superior.

Prove it. </font>

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by JasonC:

This kind of argument was definitely shown to be utter nonsense as long ago as the 1980s. If you don't know it is empty propaganda, fine, you are regurgitating silliness without knowing it instead of while knowing it. Try reading the blessed thread, or anything that has paid any attention to actual Russian sources.

I've read the 'blessed thread.'

I'm not arguing the specific subjects that are being discussed here. You're judging a person based on information that's being posted, not on their intentions. It's very clear to me that his intention was not to be a 'troll', but to provide information to a discussion. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to refute those statements with information of their own, but to insult someone for trying to partake in a discussion is both childish and unproductive.

The only thing you're accomplishing with that type of behavior is to turn people away from your discussion.

Again, it seems like the intent here is to 'win' the argument, rather than solve problems and come to a conclusion with a group of people interested in the same subject.

[Da Beginna]

The whole topic is getting more and more spoiled by masturbating grogs thinking whoowww, my book shelf is much bigger then yours.

I never evaded a good discussion, but what started out as an interesting opion of a knowledgable, fellow wargamer has turned into an exchange of insults. I kindly ask all posters to return to an openminded discussion, where arguments are based on sources and counter arguments are considered as helpful to the discussion.

No one deserves beeing insulted or mistreated. If you want so voluteerly, go to the Peng challenge.

[JasonC]

Oh, I'm done with it, what's the point.

[Jeff Heidman]

No matter how much things change, nothing ever really changes.

How are things going, Battlefrontians?

[Panzer76]

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

aye

[Egbert]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

the reason why the Poles, the French, the British, the early Soviets etc, or even the Western Allies in 1944, had such vanishing Corps is not because they all would have been substandard: it was because their performance was standard while by the standards of the day the Germans were truly superior.

Prove it. </font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Egbert:

You do remember that Stalin purged his officers, right? He wasn't afraid of those too incompetent to lead a coup. The whole idea was to render the military an empty threat.

it's not just the Soviets, it's also the French, the Poles, the Brits, the Finns and so forth.

and Soviet commanders of 1941 weren't that incompetent. compare the example i gave earlier (Brits with Operation Goodwood in 1944) and note that Soviet commanders in 1941 attacked without infantry support (which is one of the main reasons behind the failure of Operation Goodwood) only when the infantry elements were unavailable (e.g. still hundreds of kilometers away). certainly Soviet commanders of 1941 were superior to Brits of 1944 in that (rather crucial) aspect (of the whole concept of Combined Arms Operations).

the most important reason i see for the Soviet operational failures of 1941, was that Germans were simply one step ahead of them on the tactical / operational level. Germans were great boxers with smooth moves, solid defence and a KO punch. Soviets were clumsy and Germans could see what they were up to. German commanders were experienced veterans by summer 1941. Soviets had the right ideas, but attacked like blocks on a board. this drove persons like Zhukov mad. when a Soviet commander did something a bit daring, something the Germans did not expect, the results were usually good (like a whole Panzer Division getting slaughtered).

of course i agree that Red Army was in state of total C3 chaos for the first half of the war in 1941 and that whole mech corps vanished because of lack of fuel and so forth, but for the most battles the Soviets were losing simply because Germans were better in the application on both tactical and operational level. not because Soviet commanders would be doing something entirely stupid. naturally there are reasons for why Soviet commanders were worse, like having too many units to command and so forth, but it takes two to tango. IMO Soviets got better thru things like starting to concentrate troops properly, not by suddenly having more competent commanders.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

aye </font>

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

aye </font>

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

aye </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

aye </font>

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

molotov_billy, you wouldnt be THE molotov_billy from DoD, now would you?

aye </font>

[molotov_billy]

Weapon jams and faster garand! I figured CM guys would be more for realism

man I better stop.. I dont want to get this thread closed, and like you said I should be working

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Hunter:

These Soviet assaults with 1000 tanks that 'disappeared' over the course of a week...

- Where would I find some maps and oobs?

- Over what kind of front were they conducted? And how deep?

I am interested in maybe reproducing them as a campaign.

Cheers,

Hunter

David Glantz is the best source, but you will have a hell of a time nailing down anything. Unless you read Russian or are very patient with a translator, you will find it hard to get any decent info on the details of the battles themselves. The study of 1941 in Russia is simply not that far along yet.

The Battle of Smolensk involved a forerunner known as the Battle of Lepel. Here the Russian 5th and 7th Mech Corps met the German 3rd Panzer Group head on just west of the Dnepr River between Vitebsk and Orsha.

JasonC has already mentioned Dubno, but truthfully I do not know much about that one.

Army Group South had a few good battles. Do some research and you will find a list of good candidates.

During the first week of Barbarossa the 7th Panzer Division ran straight into an entire Mech Corps west of Minsk it did not know was there.

But you have to remember that these battle were fought under conditions that would be difficult to model with any exisiting game engine I am aware of. KVs without ammo were ordered to run over German tanks, entire platoons breaking down left and right, Soviet tanks arriving on the battlefield and realizing they had not been boresighted, German pioneers destroying dozens of immobilized KVs (with turrets frozen in place from the shells of 37mm guns if you can believe that), etc.

Doing research on 1941 is a difficult thing to do, but luckily, is getting easier as time goes on. Start with David Glantz and Peter J. Zaloga. They are the best sources.

For OoBs and Shtat (TO&Es) go to a series of books by Charles C. Sharp. Look for them on the George Nafziger website. Just google these names and you'll hit something.

Good luck.

Cheers

Paul

[Andreas]

Web search for Siauliai/Schaulen/Rasienai should also throw one of them up.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Also, for German KStNs (TO&Es) for the period there are several good sources, but among them are three outstanding ones, IMO.

Not meaning to ignore Tessin and Jentz, but for us English speakers, look at Leo Niehorster's site here, George Nafziger's books here or this awesome site (look at the KStNs).

I just picked up two of Dr. Niehorster's books and they are fantastic (despite a few odd typos).

Cheers

Paul

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by JasonC:

jacobs-ladder2 - Your problem understanding my position would appear to be, you simply accept it as a historical given, perhaps to be explained but not to be thought of as a variable that could have been otherwise, that a German formation with list of equipment XYZ shall outperform a Russian formation with list of equipment XYZ, to arbitrarily large orders of magnitude.

At what point did I make this assertion? I don't think we have understood each other very well. I have gone out of my way to avoid leaving this impression. I think both of us are well aware of the groundless nature of the "German superiority" argument.

And I simply don't. The equipment could do it, we know because we see smarter men accomplishing it, Russians later on accomplishing it, etc. (Guderian has plenty of broken down tanks by the time of Smolensk and tough logistical problems from the length of his advance etc. But swamp monsters do not eat his panzer army). If the men could not, so much the worse for my opinion of the men.

I agree with you, as I have several times. The equipment and men, all thing being equal, were the equivalent or better of their German opponents. My entire point has been that all things were not equal due to years upon years of purges and neglect.

What you do not understand is that I am not disagreeing with you. Well, I have disagreed with you. The "stupid" argument, I thought, was a bit, well, stupid. But all in all I think you are right.

My input has been to give a bit of background on how the state of affairs you detailed came to be.

As far as the ultimate cause of the 1941 disaster, I disagree with you. I think that the purges left the RKKA hobbled while you believe they were still capable of an earlier victory. Let's leave it at that.

I most definitely agree with you on the importance of CSS and the role it played.

Cheers

Paul