Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Review: The Bloody Triangle: The Defeat of Soviet Armor in the Ukraine, June 1941

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
    The Soviets had no time to prepare. Their task was to catch the initiative. Their task was to break German plans at any price.
    The Soviets had been preparing for the war with Germany. There had been even large miliatry exercises conducted before the war that imitated the possible German attack.

    No. German mobile panzer units outflanked resistance points or broke weak defence. In the cebtral direction in the region of the river of the Dnieper a few reserve armies were concentrated aacidently. They were moving towards the Western border and were there when the war began. Their power was able to stop or slow down the German vanguard units.
    It is the issue of the competence of the Soviet military and leadership that failed to contain German advance having absolute superiority over Germans in Ukraine


    The Soviet forces were dispersed in huge terrotory and thery were not ready for battle. The most of tanks and planes were obsolete and need to repair.
    As it is known there were about 1300 T34 and KV tanks in the Red Army at the beginning of war. These tanks were better than any German ones. So it was Germans who had obsolete tanks.

    The Soviet achievements in the Ukraine were great in comparison to what happened in Byelorussia and the Baltic.
    Rather the opposite, considering the absolute Soviet superiority over the Axis in Ukraine

    The soviet achievements in the Ukraine let to win the war. It is possible now to count destroyed tanks but the fact is that the German Barbarossa plan failed in the Ukraine and resulted to the fail of the whole Barbarossa.
    Soviet "achievement" in Ukraine is the biggest encirclement and defeat in the world history.

    After the initial rush of the first days of June before the engagement against Soviet Mech Corps in the triangle the Germans moved VERY slowly in the Ukraine.
    They moved as they were planned to up to the Dnieper.

    Only the powerful tank attack from north resulted the collapse of the south-western front in the Kiev pocket. The German forces of Army Group South hadn't broken the Soviet defence in the Ukraine with their own forces.
    Actually the German forces of Army Group South forced the Dnieper in the Southern Ukraine besides they forced both Dnieper and the Desna rivers in the north of Kiev so the situation would be the same for the Red Army: either encirclement perhaps with lesser losses or retreat.
    Last edited by Shamil; 29 Jan 09, 23:12.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Shamil View Post



      As it is known there were about 1300 T34 and KV tanks in the Red Army at the beginning of war. These tanks were better than any German ones. So it was Germans who had obsolete tanks.
      You are quite annoying in your distortions of what actually happened. As for the T-34 and KV tank, their superiority to German tanks was a moot point when crews did not have time to train on them, some of their guns were not bore sighted, there were not enough spare parts, some were simply left because they were stuck in mud or ran out of fuel, lastly the attacks they did take part in were usually done piecemeal and lacked in combined arms operations since usually artillery was missing, for a variety of reasons, nor could enough infantry be found, while the air force lacked a regular presence. You lack context in your assertions negating any point your argument(s) might have.
      Last edited by Kunikov; 29 Jan 09, 23:52.
      "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
      "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
      "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” Voltaire

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Shamil View Post
        It is the issue of the competence of the Soviet military and leadership that failed to contain German advance having absolute superiority over Germans in Ukraine
        So all the American military leaders were idiots as they let for the Japanese to beat them in 1941-first half of 1942, weren't they?

        And French militaries of 1940 were incompetent idiots. And British militaries also were idiots.

        Zhukov was the Chief of the Soviet General Staff in 1941. Of course, he was an idiot. Rokossovskiy was the commander of a Mech Corps. He also lost his corps so he also was an idiot.

        It looks like there were too many idiots, doen't it?

        In reality it is called "element of surprise" and "a sudden attack of a fully mobilized prepared experienced army against enemy army of peaceful time"


        As it is known there were about 1300 T34 and KV tanks in the Red Army at the beginning of war. These tanks were better than any German ones. So it was Germans who had obsolete tanks.
        The other Soviet tanks were old obsolete tanks wothout enough spares. Those obsolete tanks were the main bulk of the Soviet armour forces in June 1941.

        Soviet "achievement" in Ukraine is the biggest encirclement and defeat in the world history.
        The Barbarossa plan failed, it's the fact.

        They moved as they were planned to up to the Dnieper.
        It was not planned to retreat to the Dnieper in the pre-war plans.

        Actually the German forces of Army Group South forced the Dnieper in the Southern Ukraine besides they forced both Dnieper and the Desna rivers in the north of Kiev so the situation would be the same for the Red Army: either encirclement perhaps with lesser losses or retreat.
        Claws should have 2 sides. That breakthrough couldn't result to the large encirclement without the strikefrom north.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shamil View Post
          the formation of kievan rus was carried out by the slavic ancestors of modern ukrainians living in the territory of modern ukraine that subjagated different slavic and non-slavic tribes and made them pay contributions later taxes to kiev.
          NO to the bolded out part!
          Kind regards
          Igor

          * My grandfathers WW2 memoirs - Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary, 1944-1945.
          * On the question of "2 mil. rapes" by RKKA
          * Verdicts of RKKA Military Tribunals for crimes against civilians in 1945

          Comment


          • #35
            Guys keep it civil. Even if I enjoy reading some off your posts you must agree that who founded what and when is off-topic here.
            “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

            Max Sterner

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Erkki View Post
              Guys keep it civil. Even if I enjoy reading some off your posts you must agree that who founded what and when is off-topic here.

              Maybe move the posts here Erkki?

              http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=73190

              I started a thread on this interesting topic.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                So all the American military leaders were idiots as they let for the Japanese to beat them in 1941-first half of 1942, weren't they?
                The nature of the American-Japanese Pacific war significantly differed from the land war in the Eastern front. Besides the US did not have significant military superiority in that region while the superior Red Army forces were concentrated in the Western parts of the USSR at the beginning of the war.

                And French militaries of 1940 were incompetent idiots. And British militaries also were idiots.
                The highest French military commanders of 1940 are not called great generals while you clearly think of Zhukov as a good commander after his contributing to the defeat of the absolutely superior Red Army forces in Ukraine within a few months.

                In reality it is called "element of surprise" and "a sudden attack of a fully mobilized prepared experienced army against enemy army of peaceful time"

                The deployment of multi-million Axis land armies to the Soviet border does not let speak about possibilities of "element of surprise" and "a sudden attack"

                The Red Army of "peaceful time" outnumbered all the fully mobilized armies of Germany and its allies in both manpower and armaments.


                The other Soviet tanks were old obsolete tanks wothout enough spares. Those obsolete tanks were the main bulk of the Soviet armour forces in June 1941.

                The defficiencies of other Soviet tanks were more than compensated with their superior numbers.

                The Barbarossa plan failed, it's the fact.

                It was not planned to retreat to the Dnieper in the pre-war plans.
                In the pre-war Soviet plans - no, but the first more or less stable defence line was established along the Dnieper as a natural obstacle. I consider Barbarossa plan partially successful as Axis really destroyed most of the Red Army forces located in the West of the USSR withing a few months. However, the plan underestimated the Soviet military build-up and mobilisation potential that allowed to restore the bulk of pre-war Red Amy power within a short period of time.
                Last edited by Shamil; 30 Jan 09, 21:11.

                Comment


                • #38
                  You know Shambo, you are really detracting from the generalship and skill of the German army be repeating for the 3rd time your silly conclusion that just because the Soviet Army had more people and tanks, ignoring all other factors, they just HAD to win, but the Soviet commanders were SO stupid....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                    You know Shambo, you are really detracting from the generalship and skill of the German army be repeating for the 3rd time your silly conclusion that just because the Soviet Army had more people and tanks, ignoring all other factors, they just HAD to win, but the Soviet commanders were SO stupid....
                    Try to keep it civil.

                    All other factors should be cared by senior command.

                    If a general has more people and armaments, he is not expected to cede half a state. If his troops retreat under such circumstances, he is incompetant at least.
                    Last edited by Shamil; 30 Jan 09, 21:36.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                      Try to keep it civil.

                      All other factors should be cared by the senior command.

                      If a general have more people and armaments, he is not expected to cede half a state. If his troops retreat under such circumstances, he is incompetant at least.
                      Oh oh oh, OK, keep it civil, sure sure. Lets. Fine. Just you remember this also.

                      As far as your analysis, yeah you just again repeated your rather simplistic view on warfare: Forget everything, the one with more has to win.

                      That's funny since you also criticize what you call the Soviet "quality vs. quantity" philosophy.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                        Oh oh oh, OK, keep it civil, sure sure. Lets. Fine. Just you remember this also.

                        As far as your analysis, yeah you just again repeated your rather simplistic view on warfare: Forget everything, the one with more has to win.

                        That's funny since you also criticize what you call the Soviet "quality vs. quantity" philosophy.
                        The Soviet quantities compensated the lack of quality. Besides Soviet "quality vs. quantity" philosophy was applied to the military strategy, organization and the level of military training. It did not concern Soviet military industry and production as the USSR produced qualitative modern weapon.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                          The Soviet quantities compensated the lack of quality. Besides Soviet "quality vs. quantity" philosophy was applied to the military strategy and the level of military training. It did not concern Soviet military industry and production as thye USSR produced qualitative modern weapon.
                          IF quantity did indeed compensate for quality than you shouldn't critisize such as strategy. Too bad the events then, before and after continually showed that quantity did not compensate, and superior numbers of poorly equipped and trained Soviets lost battles from Finland to Ukraine.

                          The USSR did produce quality modern weapons that is true, but the sad fact was that in the summer of 1941 these weapons were not in the hands of the army.

                          There is a very good book by David Glantz about this, it is called "The Stumbling Collossuss", you should check it out. Or at least read the book discussed in this thread before stubbornly repeating the same post over and over.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yes it really did, bad bad bad quality Mosins that still is used as hunter rifles. And those crapy Nagant pistols that is being used by body gaurds, terrible. And that peice of Crap T-35? T-34 it was. It was still used 10- 15 years ago? Really bad quilty of that one. And that PPhs-41 that is being used by Americans in Iraq for clearing houses. What a junk.
                            “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

                            Max Sterner

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                              That battke resulted to the loss of the Mech Corps in the Ukraine but it was a strategic victory which resulted to the collapse of Barbarossa in the Ukraine. Germans failed to capture Kiev in time.
                              That's just plain silly. We might as well call the result of World War II a German strategic victory because it set the stage for a miraculous German economic recovery and the collapse of the Soviet Union. That makes about as much sense.
                              "If you have too firm a belief in the glories of soldiering, try a war."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                There are two things everybody needs to know to put the "Triangle" battles of late June 1941 in context:
                                1. The Red Army attempted to counterattack the Germans EVERYWHERE from the first days of the war. 3rd and 12th Mech Corps tried to counterattack in the Baltic, Boldin's "Cavalry Mechanized Group" of 6th Cav, 4th and 11th Mech Corps tried to cut off 3rd Panzer Group in Byelorussia, and Southwestern Front tried to chop off 1st Panzer Group in the Ukraine with a converging attack by 6 Mechanized Corps of varying strengths. The Soviet Army's doctrinal documents were almost uniformly offensive in nature before the war, and the natural and immediate reaction to a enemy offensive was to mount counterattacks, counterstrokes, or counteroffensives. ALL of these attempts in June and July 1942 failed both tactically and operationally. At most, they delayed the German panzers for a few days, at the cost of the destruction of most of the mechanized forces in the border military districts. Specifically, in the Ukraine the Germans failed to take Kiev in their first rush not because of counterattacking armor, but because 5th Army was on Army Group South's northern flank and 11th Army in the south failed to keep up against South Front, so that the Germans did not dare strike deep until these flanking elements were stabilized. Once 5th Army and South Front retreated, the Germans were at the gates of Kiev within a week and across the Dnepr southeast of Kiev soon after.
                                2. Barbarossa did not fail because of any tactical or operational action on the part of the Red Army. It failed because it was based on completely false assumptions by the Germans concerning the Soviet state and armed forces. Barbarossa only contemplated defeating Soviet forces west of the Dnepr River and advancing to Smolensk. After that, it was assumed that the bulk of Soviet forces would have been destroyed and the Soviet state would either sue for peace or collapse! In other words, when the Germans got to Smolensk in July and still had two Soviet Fronts in front of them and another (reasonably) intact Front on their southern flank, Barbarossa was an obsolete failure and the Germans had to come up with a new plan for further operations - hence the delay of Army Group Centre for a month at Smolensk, while Hitler and his generals argued over what to do next.
                                When you debate incompetence, spare a thought for a supposedly brilliantly competent German General Staff whose planning for the largest ground campaign in history was a complete cock-up after less than six weeks! Compared to the German strategic and grand strategic failure, the Soviet tactical and operational failures turned out to be insignificant - the Soviet state could lose the Ukraine, Southwestern Front, Western Front (twice), the Baltic States, etc, and still survive and (eventually) win. The Nazi state could not grossly underestimate what was required to bring Babarossa and the War in (their) East to a successful conclusion and ever recover, and they never did.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X