Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contribution of allied armies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    VDV - it's too bad you feel that way, because descriptions of later battles reveal the same massed tactics as earlier. The Battle for Berlin is a classic example of Soviet massed assault tactics, as was the use of penal battalions to blunt the German defenses and force them to expend more ammo. In the Battle for Berlin, the entire city could have been bombed into submission with relatively small losses, instead of the human wave attacks followed by massed armor that was used - incorrectly from a tactical viewpoint - to accomplish the same objective. Or, the city could have been pounded flat by artillery. Berlin had little left in the way of adequate defenses by that point. In fact, a massed Soviet airborne assault could easily have captured the Reichs Chancellory without half the fuss. This has been debated by military experts at far higher levels than you or me - I did my debating with an expert on Soviet and NATO tactics who taught at Sandhurst for three years. I'm sure you have credentials of equal status, correct?

    I spent 8 years of my life waiting to meet the Soviets in Geermany in battle, at which time all of their training was in massed assault tactics, using Warsaw Pact forces to blunt NATO defenses and then moving first rate units forward to seize the advantage. Additionally, Soviet doctrine was to switch all support and reinforcement assets to a successful unit in order to take advantage of a possible breach in enemy defenses. therefore, units which are being badly mauled and taking excessive casualties get nothing.

    400,000 is the casualty figure most commonly mentioned in most books on the subject of the Battle of Berlin. Even casualties of over 100,000 would be questionable, as the Allies took OMAHA Beach with only 5000 casualties, against much stiffer opposition than that offered by the defenders of Berlin. Your information about my sources is, as usual, both incorrect and full of your personal anger and animosity at Westerners. In fact, I have no less than six recent references on my shelves concerning the battle, one of which is from a Russian author. You should try to overcome your dislike of Westerners - it does you no credit.

    The use of NKVD troops to shoot troops who failed to advance is so well documented that it raises the serious issue of how reliable any of your statements are. Numerous televised interviews witrh former Soviet soldiers from WWII attest to the same thing. "Enemy At The Gates" was a movie, and therefore not a "source" for anything. If you can get past your constant insults and your need to put everyone down, you might do a little better.

    BTW - thank you for correcting my spelling of Konev's name. Like most Westerners, I'm not too good with Russian names. Of course, you meant it as yet another insult, but I chose not to take it that way, after considering where it came from.

    Speaking of idiocy, are we really supposed to believe that POW's, suffwering in the abysmal conditions of Soviet prisons, went back to war for "patriotic" reasons, or should we instead take the more logical viewpoint that they just wanted a chance to survive? Considering that Stalin had every single Soviet POW released by the Germans imprisoned for treason, I doubt your version of how Soviet troops felt about things totally.

    Andrey - I read just fine. How are you on simple courtesy? For you to believe for a single moment that casualties are not a function of tactics is an incredible lapse in judgement. Discussions of Soviet tactics as a major factor in Soviet combat losses is not only relevant, it is far more relevant than most of what has transpired so far. I can only assume you have no military training whatsoever for you to even take that approach.

    It's a pleasure to talk to you guys from the former Soviet Union. After you have had time to sharpen your knives and reload your guns, maybe we can do it again sometime.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by VDV
      At war's end, the Red Army numbered ~ 11,000,000+ active combat personnel - where is the manpower shortage?



      By comparison with 1941/42, most units in 1945 were not understrength and they were anything but poor quality.
      Well I'm taking this from Richard Overy's 'Russia's War' p.269 and he's taking his information from the Soviet Archives and various other direct sources. Where do you get your information from?
      Signing out.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by amvas
        Nope, RKKA had no so serious problems with manning. Especially taking into account large resources of liberated territorries.
        As for usage of former POWs and forced labours those people were volunteers, as they wanted to make revenge by their own hands.
        Of course lots of former POWs found themselves in Soviet camps....

        See previous post. Overy hasn't 'let me down' yet and I have no reason to believe he does here either. It corresponds with other works I've read on the battle (before you ask, I don't remember which, I read so many for my degree ) so I have to go with him on this.
        Signing out.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MountainMan
          400,000 is the casualty figure most commonly mentioned in most books on the subject of the Battle of Berlin. Even casualties of over 100,000 would be questionable, as the Allies took OMAHA Beach with only 5000 casualties, against much stiffer opposition than that offered by the defenders of Berlin.
          I don't think this is a particularly good comparison. The Germans facing the Russians may not have been of the best quality but they were highly motivated, desperate even! Plus Berlin itself was a shattered city, never an easy proposition for an army to take.


          It's a pleasure to talk to you guys from the former Soviet Union. After you have had time to sharpen your knives and reload your guns, maybe we can do it again sometime.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #65
            If the Soviets had fought the war with the same attitude as the western allies, where what would the situation have been in June of 44?

            Discounting the units facing the Soviets is a major error, the majority of SS divisions were on the Eastern front, and the 1 SS and 12 SS were on the Western front because of refit and, in the case of the twelth they were just starting up.

            I personally feel the decision to continue produing Sherman tanks, knowing they are inferior is as callous as Stalins tactics, just not on the same scale, mind you a tank is a tradgedy, a squad is a statistic.

            Looking at Iwo Jima the casualties are (approx) 22,000 for the Japanese and 18,000 for the US, in one month, that is not a great ratio.

            I may not agree with Stalins tactics, but he battled the Germans for three years before the allies really entered the war, he moved and reassembeled his factories and then out produced any other country.

            His use of penal units to break the front line is brutal, but, how many men did he save in the end.

            People in this day question the US of the atomic bomb in Japan, saying it was to brutal, perspective is everything.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by VDV
              At war's end, the Red Army numbered ~ 11,000,000+ active combat personnel - where is the manpower shortage?



              By comparison with 1941/42, most units in 1945 were not understrength and they were anything but poor quality.

              Am pretty sure that many rifle divisions were understrength, as the tank/mech units and engineers recieved reinforcements first as they were deemed more usefull

              Comment


              • #67
                Well I'm taking this from Richard Overy's 'Russia's War' p.269 and he's taking his information from the Soviet Archives and various other direct sources. Where do you get your information from?
                "Russia and the USSR in wars of the 20th century - statistical analysis of combat losses. 2001 edition". In 1945, the Red Army in europe was anything but undermanned - the numbers alone tell the story.

                400,000 is the casualty figure most commonly mentioned in most books on the subject of the Battle of Berlin.
                Well, that figure is incorrect and thus those books need some serious revision.

                as the Allies took OMAHA Beach with only 5000 casualties, against much stiffer opposition than that offered by the defenders of Berlin.
                Stiffer opposition??? Mountain Man, you still have alot to learn about the Eastern Front. In the weeks leading up to the wars end, German units were surrendering by the division to the allied armies. On the Eastern Front however, they were fighting to the death against the Red Army. Do tell of how the allies faced "stiffer" resistance than that of what the Red Army faced.

                In fact, I have no less than six recent references on my shelves concerning the battle, one of which is from a Russian author. You should try to overcome your dislike of Westerners - it does you no credit.
                Hmm.. that seems to contradict what you write here - alot of what is full of mistakes, misinterpretations and guided by your dislike of Russia and Russians.

                The use of NKVD troops to shoot troops who failed to advance is so well documented that it raises the serious issue of how reliable any of your statements are.
                Actually, such a use of the NKVD is completely undocumented. There is simply no evidence to support it in they way you describe it. The serious issue here is that of how reliable your statements are -- which they are not.

                BTW - thank you for correcting my spelling of Konev's name. Like most Westerners, I'm not too good with Russian names. Of course, you meant it as yet another insult, but I chose not to take it that way, after considering where it came from.
                No, that was a reminder for you to use correct names - not those that you read in western books. Is the name KONEV really that difficult for you??

                I doubt your version of how Soviet troops felt about things totally.
                Well, it's something that completely eludes you so I suggest you don't spend your time telling us -- how Soviet troops "felt".

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by VDV
                  "Russia and the USSR in wars of the 20th century - statistical analysis of combat losses. 2001 edition". In 1945, the Red Army in europe was anything but undermanned - the numbers alone tell the story.

                  Ah statistics. The numbers tell you nothing. It is easily possible to have a substantial number of men in the field but for frontline units to be undermannned.
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    VDV - be sure to visit the "Allied contribution" thread elsewhere, where the figures of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Berlin Soviet casualties are being quoted by more misguided Westerners. BTW - I love the part where - no matter who the reference is including a Russian - they just have to be wrong. You sound just like your government did for the last half century.

                    You don't want to miss a chance to sprad the nastiness around a little, and I'm certain you don't want to leave any of us hateful Westerners unexposed to your righteous wrath.

                    So many Westerners to hate - so little time. Must be tough being you.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      You sound just like your government did for the last half century.
                      Funny, I can say the same thing about you and your government.

                      So many Westerners to hate - so little time. Must be tough being you.
                      What makes you think I hate anyone? If anyone here has a problem here it's you as can be seen in the way you write.

                      If you want to discuss the Allies, their contribution.. etc. -- I have no problem with that but when you and others like you start making BS comments about the Red Army, it's soldiers, tactics.. etc. -- thats where I get annoyed. Most of what you've written here is false and based largely on stereotypes your government spoon-fed you for the last 50 years.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Ah statistics. The numbers tell you nothing. It is easily possible to have a substantial number of men in the field but for frontline units to be undermannned.
                        The source I cited is to this day the most comprehensive work done on the subject of Soviet civilian and military casualties. Simply to dismiss it as a "Statistics" book is wrong. Can you provide an example of how Soviet frontline units were undermanned in 1945?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by VDV
                          The source I cited is to this day the most comprehensive work done on the subject of Soviet civilian and military casualties. Simply to dismiss it as a "Statistics" book is wrong.
                          I don't see where you got this concept from. You quoted statistics and that the numbers told the story. As I pointed out, raw statistics prove nothing, I made no comment on the book. Seems you attack my position because I'm not from the former USSR. Therefore I'll not clutter your beloved forum with any more debate. Have fun talking to yourself!
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            So by your response, i'm guessing that you can't prove that Red Army units were understrength in 1945? BTW, i'm not in any way attacking your position, I'm asking you to back up your statement with some proof.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              VDV - now you're getting the hang of it. You don't believe Westerners or anything with a source in the West.

                              For the same reasons, we Westerners, who are well aware of the propaganda put out by the Soviet government since the very days of Red October, don't believe you either.

                              Kind of an awkward position you've gotten yourself into - on the one hand, you would like to discount everything anyone else says, but on the other hand, you would like them to believe you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your statements carry no more credibility than anyone else's - the same amount you grant others - which is to say...none. .

                              Sorry you hate the West so much, but if Putin has his way, you may have the opportunity to once again live gloriously under hardline Communism as you did before. You can only hope...and we will all hope for you.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by MountainMan
                                VDV - now you're getting the hang of it. You don't believe Westerners or anything with a source in the West.

                                For the same reasons, we Westerners, who are well aware of the propaganda put out by the Soviet government since the very days of Red October, don't believe you either.

                                Kind of an awkward position you've gotten yourself into - on the one hand, you would like to discount everything anyone else says, but on the other hand, you would like them to believe you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your statements carry no more credibility than anyone else's - the same amount you grant others - which is to say...none.
                                Thank you MountainMan. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to Andrey with absolutely no success. Any source (even Russians) including eyewitnesses we can produce are lying or wrong. A similar type of source from him tells the truth however. Why is his source reliable and ours is not? Anti-Russian propaganda!
                                Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X