89 replies to this topic

[A. J. Raffles]

a1s, on Jun 24 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

BeefontheBone, on Jun 24 2006, 03:47 AM, said:

If you're going to get snippy about grammar

excuse me?

I suppose he was referring to this bit in your post:

Quote

//it's caled posessive form (z.b. dogs nose, friends house, beginers luck)

[Juni Ori]

Hmm... Red Army size in July 1941 was only 5 million soldiers, which of not even nearly all were at German border. Speaks againts attack preparations. Soviet air forces were reportedly (by Luftwaffe) almost shot to the ground, as their planes used to be parked in rows. Speaks againts attack preparations. And troops being home? I wouldn't send troops to home, I'd drill them. And anyways every source I've heard of claims that whole Red Army was in peacetime organization. And some units seriously lacked equipment. Overall it doesn't sound very convincing they were going to attack in 1941. I'm quite certain that Winter War catastrophy Stalin was reluctant to invade Germany before reorganization and fully equipping his troops. Btw, what are this historian's sources?

[Japofran]

I don't think a special explanation is needed for the initial success of Operation Barbarossa. The Russian army had always been the biggest in Europe, but also the worst, and of course the communist purges and reorganizations did not help. On the other hand, the German army was the best ground army in the world. During the First World War Germany had no problems in keeping the huge Russian army at bay while exerting her main war effort in the western front.

As for Stalin's wish to take over other countries anyway, well, that's pretty obvious, it was part of his ideology.

[Stroggy]

Tanaka, on Jun 24 2006, 08:46 PM, said:

As for Stalin's wish to take over other countries anyway, well, that's pretty obvious, it was part of his ideology.

Not at first, Stalin favoured internal 'stability' over the idea of a global revolution (global communism), in which Trotsky believed ... and we all know what happened to Trotsky.

[Japofran]

Well, Stalin and Trotsky had different approaches but they were chiefly theoretical, and in my opinion it was all about a power struggle between the two to succeed Lenin. Anyway Stalin favoured revolution in many countries abroad, Spain for one, and after World War II he had taken about half of Europe, North Korea, etc.

[a1s]

Juni Ori, on Jun 24 2006, 03:17 PM, said:

Hmm... Red Army size in July 1941 was only 5 million soldiers

so? the the entire Wermacht hardly totaled 5 million at the time, while the eastern invasion force was only about 3. besides the soviets had 12 thousand tanks (albeit inferior to their german conuterparts but quite on par with those of the progressive democracies of europe like France or Brittain) near this front, germans had 3.5. the allso had lots of artilery (often without the apropriate ammunition or correction tables) of models which had later proven to be on par with the geraman ones. the only part of the Soviet forces actualy iferior to the gramnas was the airforce (but new designs were allready being tested and sent into prodcution).
there was definetly going to be an invasion- tanks are not for defencives, trenches are.
Speaking of trenches and such, did you know that many of the defensive structures on the old border (with poland) were destroyed by order of high command in 1941? that is also a silly move if you are planing to defend yourself (allthough I find it to be silly even as part of an offensive strategy but at least it does no harm there).

Quote

Btw, what are this historian's sources?

His source is mostly the state archive. However like I said he doesn't draw any direct evidence, but instead just leads the reader down the path of most logical conclusions (sometimes quite deep down that road), but in the end it all kind of forms into a clear picture.

[Juni Ori]

Ok. Germans had just a little bit over 4K tanks. SU had clearly over 15K. Most of them outdated. Also, Wehrmacht exceeded 5M in sheer numbers in east front before the Operation Barbarossa. And they outnumbered German tanks 1 to 3. And that's widely accepted fact. Even by Soviet exaggerators

And ok, you have a point, Red Army did have better (in numbers) heavy artillery, but... they were far behind in use of it. Soviet forces also did outnumber in air forces, though most of their air forces from WW1 era... Quite clear advantage to Germans.

And to what are you referring to, claiming that old trenches & defencive positions were destroyed? You know, Soviet front moved a lot forward, after occupation of Poland... And who would build defencive fortifications to middle of the country???

About state archive: even russian historians have very limited access to the former classified archives...

[Blood-Pigggy]

The germans had a badass military but Hitler was a retard cause he kept kicking off really good commanders cause he didn't agree with them.
That conceited little *kvetch*.

[Juni Ori]

If you're still speaking of Op. Barbarossa, you're a little too early. Hitler did rely to his commanders before it... Known and accepted fact.

[Blood-Pigggy]

I'm not, I'm just speaking of him in general.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Blood-Pigggy, on Jun 25 2006, 03:42 AM, said:

I'm not, I'm just speaking of him in general.

He only distrusted his commanders after about half of the war had passed...

[a1s]

Juni Ori, on Jun 25 2006, 02:06 AM, said:

Also, Wehrmacht exceeded 5M in sheer numbers in east front before the Operation Barbarossa.

why would they leave a million behind then? by dfferent estimations the german force on the eastrern front was 3-3.5 milion men (I'm too lazy to find a book on the subject but this wikipedia article seems to agree with me).

Juni Ori, on Jun 25 2006, 02:06 AM, said:

Germans had just a little bit over 4K tanks. SU had clearly over 15K. Most of them outdated.And they outnumbered German tanks 1 to 3. And that's widely accepted fact. Even by Soviet exaggerators

firs of all 15/4= 3 and 3/4, so that's more of a 1:4 (I'm a math major and these things annoy me). as for the tanks being outdated. let's see the facts:
T-26 (which was made up the bulk of the soviet tank force): was about equal to the 38t tanks and probably better than PZII. so it's a pretty decent tank once you train enough crews to use it.
T-34: no comment necesary, it's arguably the best tank in the entire war.
KV heavy tank: slow and indeffective, but no german weapon save the 88mm guns could even scratch them.

Vs

PZII,35t,38t: outdated. some were on par with T-26, others were even worse.
PZIII G: marginaly better than T-26, G would maybe win a 2:3 engagement with it (given equal crew training), but not anything more.
PZIII H: pretty much the same thing. with much luck it could take T-26s in 1:2 (again with equal crews), but even that would be a bit much.
not to mention that the ratio was over 1:3.
PZIV (D & E?): was adequate, but in short supply (about 300-400)
all of these would fall prey to a T-34 (and the KV if they were unlucky and careless enough to confront it)
NO heavy tanks. AT ALL!

I say techincaly SU tanks were quite updated, unlike their crews and tactical doctrines.

Juni Ori, on Jun 25 2006, 02:06 AM, said:

And to what are you referring to, claiming that old trenches & defencive positions were destroyed? You know, Soviet front moved a lot forward, after occupation of Poland... And who would build defencive fortifications to middle of the country???

first of all, I think you got that allready, but in case you didn't: we are not talking about trenches and single layer blidages, but multi level concrete fortifications with a system of tunels for supply and everything.
now let's turn to the question of why would anyone keep frotifications in the middle of the country. the short answer is: I don't know. however I do know that:
there is a 15 century (give or take 100 years) fort in my home city (allthough more honestly it's only half of a fort, and even if we baned airofrce and tanks worldwide it would have very little denseive value in it's current state)
there is a fortress in Brest. nothing stange here right? it's on the border of Belarus, and used to be on borders of both Inperial Russia and USSR. however it was in the middle of Poland for 20 years and they didn't demolish it, did they?
In fact there is a trecnh in one of my local (as in, near where I live during the summer) woods. it doesn't look like anyone took the effort of leveling it down, but more like it was subjected to erosion for the past 50 years.
and most importantly I know that destroying something takes people, equipment and supplies, so you don't do that without a good reason.




P.S. about this day in hostory: 56 years ago today began the Korean War.

[Juni Ori]

Ever heard of occupational forces? Also logistics, roadbuilding etc needed men. Fighting force was 3-3.5M. But same goes with russian numbers. Not all were combat units.

Couldn't find numbers in short notice, but you're making the same mistake as so many others have done: most common tank in Red Army in June 1941 was BT-7! And I admit that both Pz-I and Pz-II would have troubles against it, but Pz-III and Pz-IV were both practically invincible to them. Also there were huge number of other light tanks and outdated medium tanks, not to mention T-35, which was monstrous in size and firepower against infantry and lightly or unarmored targets, but quite useless in tank battles. Mostly because of it's lack of speed and maneuverability. Also KV-1 wasn't that superior in armor. Actually quite many German guns were able to disable KV-1. Not necessarily penetrate, but disable. Let's take for example 2cm FlaK, one of the least penetrating vehicle guns germans had! And one of the most unbelieveable! Sustained fire broke all glass, made crew deaf, immobilized it and KV-1 didn't fire a single round before crew surrendered!

And I was blind not to notice that math thing, I just copied info without thought...

Looking at raw numbers of penetrating, range and armour, I remember that T-26 were far worse than Pz-III. I have to check that out. Also, heavy tanks were less practical in battlefield and too expensive to build and maintain. As you said, T-34 brought victory to Soviet Union. IS-2 and IS-3 came too late, but they were clear successors of T-34. Small size, sloped armor, simple construction, maneuverability, effective gun, all good qualities in tanks. And none of those KV-2 for example had, even it's gun was almost useless, as it required continuous resupply.

And nobody plans defencive depth in scale of half Poland! Also, outdated fortifications have only minor effect in modern warfare... And of course there are trenches and bunkers still in very interesting places, even in seemingly useless places, but who knows when they were built and for what purpose? Also I don't understand why to destroy fortifications in old border? Strip them from guns, yes, understandable, but destroy? Waste of manpower...

[a1s]

Juni Ori, on Jun 25 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

Also I don't understand why to destroy fortifications in old border? Strip them from guns, yes, understandable, but destroy? Waste of manpower...

that's what I said.

as for the fortifications being outdated. Brest fortress was a marvel of military engeneering in mid 19th century. by 1939 it was still a  decent fortress, which held with but 1500 men against supperior forces of the entire XIX Panzer Corps (under comand of the infamous General Heinz Guderian). And the old border fortifications were obviously buildt some time after the soviet-polish war just 20 years before WWII.

[Blood-Pigggy]

PrejudiceSucks, on Jun 25 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

Blood-Pigggy, on Jun 25 2006, 03:42 AM, said:

I'm not, I'm just speaking of him in general.

He only distrusted his commanders after about half of the war had passed...

Well now you're just telling me I'm right.