Score one for the French!!

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » September 27, 2003, 10:08 pm

Actually I'm fairly sure the initial russian troops did have uniforms and rifles, but most of those divisions were destroyed or captured during the initial few months of the war. It was the new conscript divisions that Russia whipped together to try to get something, anything, to slow the germans down that didnt have equipment for a long time.

Side note- it was 6 years from Hitlers election to the beginning of ww2, not 10.

*Hugs*
Varia

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 27, 2003, 10:22 pm

Keegan is a little high in comparison to some other sources I was looking at, I used him though since he is fairly well regarded historian (at least from all I have read regarding him) where I wasn't sure how good the other references are. But if you want to look at some other numbers based off some googling, here you go.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

In preparation for the attack Hitler moved 2.5 million men to the Soviet border, launched many aerial surveillance missions over Soviet territory, and stockpiled vast amounts of materiel in the East.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/ww2/barbarossa.html

Germany attacked Russia with more than 3 million soldiers. They had more than 3,000 tanks, 2,500 aircraft, 7,000 artillery pieces, 600,000 motor vehicles, and 625,000 horses. The Romanian army contributed 250,000 men and the Finns 500,000. Initially, the Soviets had 2,500,000 men and another 2,200,000 in reserve to defend Moscow and other key cities. The Red Army had more tanks and planes than their enemies, but with the exception of many of the tanks, the equipment was obsolete or inferior.

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Barbarossa.htm

Hitler threw 183 divisions into the assault, while the Nazis faced 170 divisions, which represented 54 percent of the Red Army's total strength. Subsequently, the German armies were to occupy a line reaching from Archangel on the White Sea to Astrakhan on the Caspian Sea.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/oob.htm

Order of battle for the three main army groups

AXIS

ARMY GROUP NORTH "Leeb"
29 Divisions including 3 Panzer Divisions and 2 Motorized

18th ARMY " Kuchler "

PANZER GRUPPE IV " Hoeppner "

16th ARMY " Busch "

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte I (Keller)

----------------------------------------------------

ARMY GROUP CENTRE (Bock)

49 Divisions including 9 Panzer, 6 Motorized and 1 Cav.

PANZER GRUPPE III (Hoth)

9th ARMY (Staruss)

4th ARMY (Kluge)

PANZER GRUPPE II (Guderian)

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte II (Kesserling)

-----------------------------------------------------

ARMY GROUP SOUTH (Rundstedt)

42 Divisions including 5 Panzer and 3 Motorized

6th ARMY (Reichenau)

PANZER GRUPPE I (Kleist)

17th ARMY (Stulpnagel)

Rumanian 3rd ARMY

11th ARMY (Schobert)

Rumanian 4th ARMY

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte IV

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russia.htm

The German attack on Russia involved:

3 million soldiers,
3580 tanks,
7184 artillery guns,
1830 planes
750,000 horses

Even the lower estimates of 2.5 million involved puts it no where close to the 20 - 1 ratio you proposed.

Kyoukan:

Also Russia had a lot of soldiers but they were poorly equipped to the point where less than half of them had rifles and even fewer had anything resembling a military uniform. Stalin's military tactics for defending against german sieges were literally to keep sending men out until the nazis ran out of ammunition.

I have never heard that the Russians had any systemic lack of basic infantry weapons (or uniforms). As I pointed out earlier, they had a lot of tanks and aircraft at the start of the war, although many were older inferior designs. The Russian army certainly suffered a lot of severe losses early on. The Russian air force had a substantial portion of its strength destroyed. The Russian troops weren't really deployed that well against the invasion (Stalin didn't think Hitler was actually going to invade). There is no denying also that the German wehrmacht was very good at its job. They isolated large portions of the Russian army in vast encirclments and then destroyed the resulting pockets.

Russia has a lot of territory to take however. Ultimately the German drive slowed and finally halted. In some part due to lengthening supply lines and the onset of winter, but also due to the continued stubborn Russian defense. The Russians did very well in continuing to mobilize troops, and to produce tanks, artillery etc. Although some of the early Russian equipment was inferior, much of the later equipment was not. Russian tanks were among the best of the time (some people think the T-34 was the best overall tank of the war). Their artillery was generally excellent as well. They also had learned (the hard way) and were not easily encircled and destroyed as they were in the opening stages. The Russian Army became a much tougher opponent as the war in the east progressed.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 27, 2003, 11:20 pm

During the Stalingrad battle the Russians did have a shortage of infantry weapons (rifles etc). Basicly they were assigned 2-3 people to each rifle and told to stay back and pick up the rifle when the other guy died.

I can't for the life of me recall where I read it though, I've read so many WWII books...

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 27, 2003, 11:40 pm

Agreed Kelshara. I'm not saying the comparison is 100% correct, it just makes me wonder.

I also admit I don't really understand what the European population felt after WWI. I do know a little of how the German population felt from my HS girlfriend's Grandparents and her friends Grandparents (she was an exchanget student from Germany). Growing up reading all about WWII with most of my family historically from Germany I was always proud of the German technological achievement but in horror at some of their actions. Lets face it, at the beginning of WWII they were far and above EVERYONE technologically.

From both sets of Grandparents I got an understanding of the humilitation they felt and the sheer struggle to live on a daily basis before the Nazi's gained power. While they said no one would have ever condoned the treatment of the Jews etc... everything they were told pointed to other things. Sure they heard rumors but they heard a lot of rumors about other things too that turned out to be false. By time the war started the propaganda machine was so powerful people didn't know what to think. But what they did know was that they felt proud to be German again, something they didn't feel in the early part of the 20s and that they had food to eat and somewhere to live. At home everything seemed ideallic. None of them lived close enough to a concentration camp to see it immediatly after the war but they saw daily pictures in the paper of the horror. They also seems to still be carrying around guilt about what had happened even though they weren't a part of it really. One statement that sticks out was "we should have known or should have found out what was really happening, but we didn't..."

I'm sure from the atrocities that were WWI the guys from the trenches felt some of the same. That would tend to make someone do everything possible to avoid war. The problem was that while they were trying to see things logically and sane they were dealing with a madman.

Marb

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 28, 2003, 1:26 am

This thread makes me want to watch enemy at the gates again, love that movie

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 28, 2003, 9:57 am

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 28, 2003, 7:10 pm

kyoukan wrote:lol russia. like I said I am wiping my ass.

You just keep telling yourself that. That way, you can feel good about yourself for being the superior intellect, regardless of the documentation out thare that says otherwise. Like the old saying goes "Ignorance is bliss"!
Once again, arguing with you is pointless. I could sit here and type until I was blue in the face, it still wouldnt do any good. I would rather shave my head with a cheesegrater & chew on aluminum foil than do that....for the later would be more rewarding!

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 28, 2003, 7:13 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Does this book have a name?

"The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 28, 2003, 7:40 pm

Zamtuk wrote:They hit trouble in Leningrad. After they went through it they were defeated in Stalingrad.

They never took Leningrad. It was encircled the previous year the germans reached Stalingrad. Stalingrad was THE pivotal battle of the war, but I wouldn't say one could count the German defeated yet. They probably couldn't have acheived there goals, but fought there way to a reasonable peace with Russia at best

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » September 29, 2003, 5:14 am

Once the russians won Stalingrad and the winter offensive that went with it I dont think Stalin would have been the least bit interested in making peace with Germany short of their total defeat.
*Hugs*
Varia

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 29, 2003, 8:24 am

You guys are going to overload the google servers.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 29, 2003, 8:35 am

I still haven't seen anything that indicates french stupidity or some other national character defect caused their capitulation.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 29, 2003, 9:52 am

"The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay.

Haven't read it, is it any good? Available at any local bookstore etc?

I have yet to use Google once on this topic Krims

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 29, 2003, 11:15 am

I am not overly fond of random Google searches as supporting evidence. I prefer to check sources I am fairly familar with, or if I use Google try to track the references back to a source I know. Unforunately I am not familar with any good sources for world war II history on the web, which is why I used the Keegan reference. Although I have read more, his is the only book I actually own that went over the eastern front in any detail. So I threw out the other google references just for some additional points of view, make of them what you will.

Personally I was never trying to prove anything about France's behavior in World War II. I was just responding to the allegations that no single country won anything but a minor skirmish against Germany and that Russian forces outnumbered Germanys by 20 to 1.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 29, 2003, 11:28 am

I was just responding to the allegations that no single country won anything but a minor skirmish against Germany and that Russian forces outnumbered Germanys by 20 to 1.

Well allow me to retort

The original discussion started regarding the earlier period of WW2 and the fall of Europe. In the context of that period, the initial assertion is correct. The only really effective counter to Blitzkrieg was the russian "Packfront" tactic that wasn't developed til. . .43? Not certain on that date.
The first victory of any real significance against the german army, anywhere in the war, was Monty's big lie: The Battle of El Alamein. Up til then it had been consistent arsekicking and the skin-of-the-teeth Battle of Britain (not so much a victory as avoiding defeat).

20 to 1 is just hyperbole (from Kyou. Shocking isn't it

) unless you're mentioning the period up to the invasion of Russia (maybe even the 2nd invasion) when it could well be true.

I've read a few war history books lately. All of Ambrose's stuff on the strength of Band of Brothers. He's a good easy read. Very US-centric.
First Light by Geoffrey Wellum was a great memoir of a Spitfire pilot in WW2. Interesting for the background he gives, the incredibly understated style and great taste of an England that no longer exists.
"Stalingrad", awesome book. I'm resting after this before I start "Berlin" cos they're brutal.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 29, 2003, 11:35 am

Kelshara wrote:
"The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay.
Haven't read it, is it any good? Available at any local bookstore etc?

I have yet to use Google once on this topic Krims

I bought it in the Chicago airport, so I would think its pretty readily availible.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 29, 2003, 11:39 am

VariaVespasa wrote:Once the russians won Stalingrad and the winter offensive that went with it I dont think Stalin would have been the least bit interested in making peace with Germany short of their total defeat.
*Hugs*
Varia

Oh very true...I just believe that that particular outcome would be the only ultimate outcome favorable to the Germans.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 29, 2003, 12:03 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
I was just responding to the allegations that no single country won anything but a minor skirmish against Germany and that Russian forces outnumbered Germanys by 20 to 1.
Well allow me to retort

The original discussion started regarding the earlier period of WW2 and the fall of Europe. In the context of that period, the initial assertion is correct. The only really effective counter to Blitzkrieg was the russian "Packfront" tactic that wasn't developed til. . .43? Not certain on that date.
The first victory of any real significance against the german army, anywhere in the war, was Monty's big lie: The Battle of El Alamein. Up til then it had been consistent arsekicking and the skin-of-the-teeth Battle of Britain (not so much a victory as avoiding defeat).

20 to 1 is just hyperbole (from Kyou. Shocking isn't it ) unless you're mentioning the period up to the invasion of Russia (maybe even the 2nd invasion) when it could well be true.

I've read a few war history books lately. All of Ambrose's stuff on the strength of Band of Brothers. He's a good easy read. Very US-centric.
First Light by Geoffrey Wellum was a great memoir of a Spitfire pilot in WW2. Interesting for the background he gives, the incredibly understated style and great taste of an England that no longer exists.
"Stalingrad", awesome book. I'm resting after this before I start "Berlin" cos they're brutal.

The soviet "packfront" I THINK was first seen in Operation Citadel (Kursk).

Ambrose is very good reading, although at times I felt like I was being slapped upside the head with an american flag.
A great book on Russia is "Barbarossa" by Alan Clark. For Stalingrad, did you read the one by Antony Beavor? That one kept me up LATE at night for many nights...great book! Another two great ones for Stalingrad are "199 Days" by Edwin Hoyt & "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig.
Enemy at the Gates was probably the most desriptive on the level of the footsoldier. Very horrifying!

Hey, just curious, with you being a brit and all, what is your opinion of Monty?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 29, 2003, 12:12 pm

Yeah it was the Beavor one. It was as compelling as it was appalling. "Berlin" is his new book - same deal as Stalingrad but according to a friend who has read it it's even more harrowing.

Monty was great, what's not to like?

Like all good war commanders he had his share of luck though. He also pissed off a lot of yanks and we like that over here

Apparently Patton particularly didn't like him and he could even make Eisenhower grind his teeth. The yanks thought he was pessimistic and overcautious but they levelled that complaint at us Brits in general so it's fitting our field commander displayed the same qualities

He also did what what Britain did all the way through the war: Made do with what we had (little), tried to keep it civilized (in the North Africa campaign, all fighting stopped at 5pm sharp for tea (Brits) and coffee (Germans)), and used ingenuity and guile better than any country in the world. I haven't done a lot of reading on Monty though, so most of this is just random stuff I've picked up from indirect sources. His battlewagon in the Imperial War Museum is cool though.
I've focussed more on the real turning points of the war and much as I'd like to pretend otherwise, after the Battle of Britain us Brits didn't really shine in that respect other than as part of the greater Allied endeavour. Unless you count all that ingenious shit like Enigma, radar, nuclear weapons etc

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 29, 2003, 3:50 pm

Monty only got his victory at El Alamein due to Rommel's supply problems. For this, credit of the victory should have gone to the blokes sitting in Bletchely Park, not Monty!
He took too long to take Caen (some speculation here..the germans had a lot of friggin tanks here) He muddled Goodwood, and Market Garden was a far too risky of plan.

Oh, and another GREAT book is "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer. It is the authors account of his experiences fighting on the Eastern front a sa german soldier with the "Gros Deutchland" division. The best book I have read. EVAH.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 29, 2003, 4:22 pm

stopping for tea is nonsense. funny, but nonsense.

it is only self indulgent to be able to tell yourself that you are maintaining some aspect of civility while you've spent the entirity of the day trying to kill people.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 29, 2003, 4:47 pm

Voronwë wrote:stopping for tea is nonsense. funny, but nonsense.

it is only self indulgent to be able to tell yourself that you are maintaining some aspect of civility while you've spent the entirity of the day trying to kill people.

Yep, they actually did that! They even had a semi-formal agreement with the germans opposite them for a period. They went as far as to exchange wounded, & supplies at night as well! Come morning, it was "gametime" again.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 29, 2003, 6:47 pm

Of course another interesting history is the "Christmas Truce" from WWI.

For those who are not aware of what it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_repo ... 197627.stm

It is well worth a read, and it actually gives me shivers thinking about it and trying to put myself in their place.

Also: Much respect for the RAF fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain. Can't do anything but respect them for the courage it takes to go up alone or in pairs against a vastly larger force.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 29, 2003, 8:06 pm

A good book to read concerning WW1 and the "Christmas Truce" is Eye Deep in Hell. It gives a first hand account of what happened. A real good read.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 30, 2003, 6:00 am

I don't need to read a book I've got my great-grandfather's WW1 war diaries to read if I want to hear what it was really like

It's amazing to see these tiny dogeared pocket books filled with pencil scrawl describing the deprivations the soldiers went through. He also lists the 1st 2nd and 3rd place winners of all the sports events that went on during the xmas truce.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 30, 2003, 9:13 am

vn_Tanc wrote:I don't need to read a book I've got my great-grandfather's WW1 war diaries to read if I want to hear what it was really like

It's amazing to see these tiny dogeared pocket books filled with pencil scrawl describing the deprivations the soldiers went through. He also lists the 1st 2nd and 3rd place winners of all the sports events that went on during the xmas truce.

Scan and post plz!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 30, 2003, 10:16 am

Hrm scanning them isn't a bad idea anyway. But i'll have to talk to my dad about that and find out how many we have to hand and how many are in the regimental museum, and whether they're they WW1 ones or his Boer War ones.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 30, 2003, 11:31 am

vn_Tanc wrote:Hrm scanning them isn't a bad idea anyway. But i'll have to talk to my dad about that and find out how many we have to hand and how many are in the regimental museum, and whether they're they WW1 ones or his Boer War ones.

If you could scan those, and email them out/post them, I will personally get on a plane, fly to the UK, and give you a big, fat, sloppy kiss!

In fact I am flying to Poland at the end of the month! I could stop in Heathrow, and...

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 30, 2003, 12:09 pm

I wouldn't go that far but I would say thanks and throw some vv's your way!!

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 30, 2003, 12:14 pm

Ok, ok....I realize the sloppy kiss thing would probably prevent it from happing, so how about 1k VV's?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 30, 2003, 12:21 pm

Your VV bribes and sexual favours are a far smaller factor than me remembering/getting around to sort it out