Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

[Rokko]

There are countless accounts of women, that nevertheless shared the last bread of their family with the asking german soldier. My grandfather told me, that they even had to pay, if they wanted something to eat from the Russians.

I'd say that speaks more in favor of the Soviet civil population than for the German soldiers there.

Seems my comment was rather useless since you appear to be very fond of cherry-picking Neo-Nazi/apologist/revisionist "sources".

[Sgt Joch]

Gunnergoz, I believe what Steiner 14 is referring to is the fact that many Ukrainian partisan groups, after they had booted out the Germans launched a Guerilla war against the Soviets to try to get independence/autonomy. The Red Army took until 1950 to quell all the revolts.

Stalin was able to unite everyone in 1941 because he promised reforms after the war would be won. Many people hoped things would be different after the war. When the Red Army liberated Ukraine, first thing they did was to disarm the Partisan groups and shoot or emprison their leaders. Some took that as a sign that reforms were not forthcoming....

[LemoN]

Nope, taken straight from the history books. Trotsky started it in the civil war to prevent retreats. In WW2, the NKVD patrolled all the rear areas to make sure no one retreated or deserted. Anyone who was found without valid written authorization could and often was summarily shot.

O RLY?

Seriously, please learn to read in the future. I never doubted their existence, I just stated that they didn't operate anywhere near the way you see it portrayed in western films, or the way you implied first.

They were NOT used the way you see in D:EATG and the way you implied in your first post, there were no MG detachments in the frontline to gun down anyone who got back from a failed attack. Their primary job was in defensive operations to prevent stragglers and deserters from spreading panic and confusion. Most of the time they didn't even shoot them but detained them and returned them to their units later on or put them into penal battalions. Only when there was no action they usually straight out shot the subjects since they were, most of the time, deserters. I'm not justifying it, but the way the blocking detachments are portrayed in western pop literature is simply false.

[gunnergoz]

Gunnergoz, I believe what Steiner 14 is referring to is the fact that many Ukrainian partisan groups, after they had booted out the Germans launched a Guerilla war against the Soviets to try to get independence/autonomy. The Red Army took until 1950 to quell all the revolts.

Stalin was able to unite everyone in 1941 because he promised reforms after the war would be won. Many people hoped things would be different after the war. When the Red Army liberated Ukraine, first thing they did was to disarm the Partisan groups and shoot or emprison their leaders. Some took that as a sign that reforms were not forthcoming....

I know this and it pertains to Eastern Ukraine's border regions, not the entire country. Ukrainian nationalists existed before the Germans invaded.

At the same time, Stalin said nothing to the Russians beyond the fact that they would all fight the Germans together. Sure, there were the usual exhortations to move the glorious revolution forward, but I don't think they affected anyone but communist "true believers."

OTOH, I do not recall reading of any "promises" being made to induce the Soviet people to unite to fight the invaders. That would have been insulting, not to say unnecessary. That was not the first invasion Russians had endured. They have long memories. Local nationalists made hay of the opportunity to rise up, as noted, but most of the people needed little inducement to knuckle down for a long, hard and deadly fight. What they wanted to know from Stalin was, was he with them or would he seek an accommodation with the Germans as he had in the pre-war pact with the supposed enemy? Once it was clear that Stalin was staunchly behind the fight, the people surged to the mobilization points.

Steiner's attempts to whitewash the invasion as some sort of humanitarian effort by the Germans to liberate the downtrodden communist masses just reeks of BS, I'm sorry. Your view is better balanced but IMHO still reflects some things that are not supported by my first hand observations and experience with people in the FSU.

BTW I'm responding with this post because I was directly addressed and to not reply would be rude.

[undercovergeek]

so..... errrrr those machine guns and their suppressive fire then????

[dan/california]

If you want too sleep badly for about a week there is a well book called "The Bloodlands" about the people and places unfortunate enough to occupy the ground on which Hitler and Stalin resolved their differences. Both side really were indescribably ugly to each other and anyone who just happened to be there.

[Sgt Joch]

O RLY?

Seriously, please learn to read in the future. I never doubted their existence, I just stated that they didn't operate anywhere near the way you see it portrayed in western films, or the way you implied first.

They were NOT used the way you see in D:EATG and the way you implied in your first post, there were no MG detachments in the frontline to gun down anyone who got back from a failed attack. Their primary job was in defensive operations to prevent stragglers and deserters from spreading panic and confusion. Most of the time they didn't even shoot them but detained them and returned them to their units later on or put them into penal battalions. Only when there was no action they usually straight out shot the subjects since they were, most of the time, deserters. I'm not justifying it, but the way the blocking detachments are portrayed in western pop literature is simply false.

In the Red Army of the Soviet Union, the concept of barrier troops, first arose in August 1918 with the formation of the (zagraditelnye otriady), translated as "blocking troops" or "anti-retreat detachments" (Russian: заградотряды, заградительные отряды, отряды заграждения).[1] The barrier troops were composed of personnel drawn from Cheka punitive detachments or from regular Red Army infantry regiments.

The first use of the barrier troops by the Red Army occurred in the late summer and fall on the Eastern front during the Russian Civil War, when commander Mikhail Tukhachevsky was authorized by War Commissar Leon Trotsky of the Communist Bolshevik government to station blocking detachments behind unreliable Red Army infantry regiments in the 1st Red Army, with orders to shoot if they either deserted or retreated without permission.[1]

In December 1918 Trotsky ordered that additional barrier troops detachments be raised, for attachment to each infantry formation in the Red Army. On December 18 he cabled: "How do things stand with the blocking units? As far as I am aware they have not been included in our establishment and it appears they have no personnel. It is absolutely essential that we have at least an embryonic network of blocking units and that we work out a procedure for bringing them up to strength and deploying them."[1] The barrier troops were also used to enforce Bolshevik control over food supplies in areas controlled by the Red Army, a role which soon earned them the hatred of the Russian civilian population.[2]

The concept was re-introduced on a large scale during the Great Patriotic War.[3] On June 27, 1941, in response to reports of unit disintegration in battle and desertion from the ranks in the Soviet Red Army, the 3rd Department (military counterintelligence of Soviet Army) of the USSR's Narkomat of Defense issued a directive creating mobile barrier forces composed of NKVD personnel to operate on roads, railways, forests, etc. for the purpose of catching 'deserters and suspicious persons'. These forces were given the acronym SMERSH (from the Russian Smert shpionam - Death to spies).[4][5] SMERSH detachments were created from NKVD troops, augmented with counterintelligence operatives, and were under the command of the NKVD.[4]

With the continued deterioration of the military situation in the face of the German offensive of 1941, SMERSH and other NKVD punitive detachments acquired a new mission: to prevent the unauthorized withdrawal of Red Army forces from the battle line.[4][6] The first troops of this kind were formed in the Bryansk Front on September 5, 1941.

On September 12, 1941 Joseph Stalin issued the Stavka Directive No. 1919 (Директива Ставки ВГК №001919) concerning the creation of barrier troops in rifle divisions of the Southwestern Front, to suppress panic retreats. Each Red Army division was to have an anti-retreat detachment equipped with transport totalling one company for each regiment. Their primary goal was to maintain strict military discipline and to prevent disintegration of the front line by any means, including the use of machine guns to indiscriminately shoot any personnel retreating without authorization.[7] These barrier troops were usually formed from ordinary military units, and placed under NKVD command.

In 1942, after the creation of penal battalions by Stavka Directive No. 227 (Директива Ставки ВГК №227) in 1942, anti-retreat detachments were also used to prevent withdrawal or desertion by penal units as well. However, Penal military unit personnel were always rearguarded by NKVD or SMERSH anti-retreat detachments, and not by regular Red Army infantry forces.[4]

A report to Commissar General of State Security Lavrentiy Beria on October 10, 1941 noted that since the beginning of the war, NKVD anti-retreat troops had detained a total of 657,364 retreating or deserting personnel, of which 25,878 were arrested, and 10,201 shot. Most of those arrested were later returned to active duty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops

[LemoN]

I hope you realise that this in no way supports the way that D:EATG portrays them?

Please, read up on them and stop throwing around wikifail.

[Sgt Joch]

LemoN, you are the one who brought up Enemy at the Gates.

Barrier troops did exist and they were used to prevent retreats. Glantz discusses them in his first volume of his Stalingrad trilogy as well.

[JonS]

wikifail.

references in the linked Wiki article:

References

^ a b c Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, transl. & edited by Harold Shukman, HarperCollins Publishers, London (1996), p. 180 

^ Lih, Lars T., Bread and Authority in Russia, 1914-1921, University of California Press (1990), p. 131 

^ Overy, R. J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W. W. Norton & Company (2004), ISBN 0393020304, 9780393020304, p. 535 

^ a b c d Stephan, Robert, Smersh: Soviet Military Counter-Intelligence during the Second World War, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 22, No. 4, Intelligence Services during the Second World War: Part 2 (October, 1987), pp. 585-613 

^ Holley, David, Exhibit in Moscow Celebrates a Soviet-Era Intelligence Agency, Interview of Vadim Telitsyn, Los Angeles Times, 25 May 2003, Section A-3 

^ Holley, David, Exhibit in Moscow Celebrates a Soviet-Era Intelligence Agency, Interview of Vadim Telitsyn, Los Angeles Times, 25 May 2003, Section A-3 

^ Mawdsley, Evan, The Stalin Years: The Soviet Union 1929-1953, Manchester University Press (2003), ISBN 0719063779, 9780719063770, p. 135 

^ A. Toptygin, Neizvestny Beria (Moscow and St. Petersburg, 2002), p. 121 

Further reading

Karpov, Vladimir, Russia at War: 1941-45, trans. Lydia Kmetyuk (New York: The Vendome Press (1987) 

Overy, R. J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W. W. Norton & Company (2004), ISBN 0393020304, 9780393020304 

Органы государственной безопасности СССР в Великой Отечественной войне. Сборник документов, 

Том 1. Книга 1. Накануне, Издательство "Книга и бизнес", (1995) ISBN 5-212-00804-2 

Том 1. Книга 2. Накануне, Издательство "Книга и бизнес", (1995) ISBN 5-212-00805-0 

Том 2. Книга 1. Начало, Издательство "Русь" (2000) ISBN 5-8090-0006-1 

Том 2. Книга 2. Начало, Издательство "Русь" (2000) ISBN 5-8090-0007-X 

Том 3. Книга 1. Крушение "Блицкрига", Издательство: Русь, 2003, ISBN 5-8090-0009-6 

Том 3. Книга 2. От обороны к наступлению, Издательство: Русь, 2003, ISBN 5-8090-0021-5

[Steiner14]

Steiner's attempts to whitewash the invasion as some sort of humanitarian effort by the Germans to liberate the downtrodden communist masses

A strawman argument. I never said that. My position is, that it was a preemptive strike and that the people were hopeful, to get rid of the Communists.

What i find really strange is, that you claim to be Ukrainian and mention your grandmother and defend Stalin, but you do not mention the Holodomor?

[zukkov]

well combining the 2 main topics of this thread, i'd suggest that if all the barrier troups had were hmg's then the retreating russian soldiers should have had no problem getting passed them...

[gunnergoz]

A strawman argument. I never said that. My position is, that it was a preemptive strike and that the people were hopeful, to get rid of the Communists.

What i find really strange is, that you claim to be Ukrainian and mention your grandmother and defend Stalin, but you do not mention the Holodomor?

You don't read very well either, or simply like to twist facts to suit your perspective. I never claimed to be Ukrainian, simply married one; and I wrote she was my mother in law, not my grandmother. And I don't defend Stalin. But I sure as hell don't defend Hitler either as you clearly seem to. "Preemptive strike?" In your dreams...but that was Hitler's excuse so its yours too.

Now let it go - you and I are from two different worlds and of that fact I'm glad.

[Sgt Joch]

well combining the 2 main topics of this thread, i'd suggest that if all the barrier troups had were hmg's then the retreating russian soldiers should have had no problem getting passed them...

I guess we did take this one way off topic, but it would not be the first time.

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, I have nothing against the Russian people who sacrificed more than than another Allied nation in WW2. If it was not for their determination, we would never have won WW2.

It is the Communist Regime as imposed by Stalin I have no respect for, although I hate the Nazi regime even more.

It is one of the irony of history that to defeat the worst tyrant of the 20th century, we had to ally ourselves with the 2nd worst tyrant of the 20th century.:confused:

[Magpie_Oz]

It is one of the irony of history that to defeat the worst tyrant of the 20th century, we had to ally ourselves with the 2nd worst tyrant of the 20th century.:confused:

I think that title is a hotly contested one, estimates of deaths attributable to the dictators, generally civilian both at home and in occupied countries, execution of POWs and deserters, and genocide of ethinic groups like Jehovah's Witness, Freemasons, Homosexuals, Gypsies.

Tojo 30 million

Stalin 20 million

Hitler 17 Million

[Steiner14]

"Preemptive strike?" In your dreams...

Good argument.

It seems the opening of the post-Soviet archives in 1990 for a few years and the ongoing open debate among russian historians seems to have not reached the states at all. At least not the "best informed" american citizens...

[LemoN]

Barrier troops did exist

*facepalm*

For the last time, I never doubted that they did exist and were used extensively, they just weren't used the way you implied in your first post.

[gunnergoz]

Good argument.

It seems the opening of the post-Soviet archives in 1990 for a few years and the ongoing open debate among russian historians seems to have not reached the states at all. At least not the "best informed" american citizens...

I said let it go. Do you not know when you have been told politely to back off?

[argie]

I found this place fairly useful when talking on democide.

As they says there, Hitler's 17M where just the outright murders, but there were 28M civilians and 14M soldiers killed in Europe in WWII that can be blamed on him to some extent (and I'd dare to say that Stalin got a new chance to new killings, under the war's umbrella, thanks to him also).

If not the greatest, for sure he was the most influential mass murdered. coming from the heart of our civilization.

[gunnergoz]

On a different subject. Actually, the one we started to discuss. What a concept.

I just tried my hand at making a little test, using the scenario builder for the first time. I made a 300x1000 meter map, totally flat and placed a US infantry company (all regular/normal/fit/neutral leadership at one end (minus mortars and HMG's) and told it to take the other end. On the other end I placed 1 German infantry platoon in the open, same soft factors, sans schrecks but including any fausts they might have. I did allow the US to keep its bazookas since they were often used in an anti-personnel role.

The Germans opened fire around 600 meters. The US return fire started to take its toll around 300 meters.

The end? All 30 some Germans eliminated (they had no place to run) and the Americans ended with 4 KIA and 15 WIA, with over 100 remaining OK.

Just one trial and not proof of anything except in this one instance, MG42's did not show much killing power and there were 3 of them there.

I expected exposed defenders to die like flies. What I did not expect was the relatively low losses they inflicted before the Americans got into range to return fire and do some suppressing themselves.

I'll probably play around with this some more, add some foxholes and see what happens. But I must say that this was surprising, given that in the regular game scenarios, it just seems and feels more...credible. Maybe this is just too extreme a trial to prove anything.

Comments?

[Michael Emrys]

Comments?

I for one would be interested to hear how it went with an HMG on either flank of the German position.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

I for one would be interested to hear how it went with an HMG on either flank of the German position.

Michael

You want that with the MMG"s too? For a total of 5 MG's? Or in lieu of the line platoons and their MMG's for a total of only 2 MG's but both being heavy?

[Michael Emrys]

You want that with the MMG"s too? For a total of 5 MG's? Or in lieu of the line platoons and their MMG's for a total of only 2 MG's but both being heavy?

Some confusion here. I meant, the German platoon as you described it plus an HMG on either flank. Total of five MGs of which three are light and two heavy. Putting the HMGs on the flanks better represents a typical tactical arrangement, I believe. And as an alternate, putting the whole lot in trenches and/or foxholes would be interesting.

In the original set up you described, I am not too surprised at the outcome, since the GIs have nearly overwhelming force, although I too would have expected them to suffer somewhat more casualties. What were the morale effects on each side?

Michael

[gunnergoz]

Everything was set for average, including morale, on both sides. I expected to lose the Germans, but I expected also to have them take out more attackers before they were eliminated. I'll check things out and get back to you.

[gunnergoz]

The two extra HMG's altered the balance considerably. After 30 minutes of advancing, the US company had failed to take the objective, although the Germans were beginning to waver and break from their own losses. Once the US got within 300 yards, the Germans could not keep up the same rate of knockdowns and eventually the US gained some measure of fire superiority, although at horrendous cost to themselves. At 200 yards so many US troops were cowering and near panic that it was taking a long time between team rushes, so it is conceivable that the Americans might have broken entirely at the final rush. It was more like a race to see who would break first.

Final Tally:

US 63 OK, 27 KIA, 35 WIA

Germans 19 OK, 7 KIA, 17 WIA

The foxholes helped the Germans resist return fire until about 300 yards and after that they were getting picked off as they stuck their heads up.

A most interesting experiment. Had the Americans more time, they possibly would have taken the objective, but the company would have been reduced by more than half by then. A Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one. The Germans might have sacrificed themselves but they did not go cheap.

Since both sides were evenly matched on other soft factors this could be a baseline to study extremes and variations, but clearly I need to allocate more time so things can play out to a final conclusion. An interesting variant would be to swap sides and see how M1 Garand equipped troops with M1919A4's and A6's will fare against a German force. I suspect the US defenders will do better given their superior individual firepower.

But for now I can answer the question "do HMG's work as advertised?" with a qualified yes. And infantry will continue to advance into the teeth of horrendous fire.