PDA

View Full Version : Why USSR failed so miserable in the first stages of GPW



crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 01:43 PM
Another view on the subject by HSU PStigo.
Taken and translated from his memoirs, go easy on me, i am not a pro http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

**********************************************
"In early 40s The level of our technology was much lover then Germany had at that time
And that`s exactly why german fighters ME-109 we much better then our I-16, I-153 and even new Lagg-3. German bombers JU-88 and HE-111 were completely superior to our TB-1, TB-2, TB-3, SU-2, SB-5.
German tanks were inferior to our T-34s, but we had so few of those, it`s a shame.
Germany was producing automatic weapons in great scale, while our command were pretty sure that we can acheive victory with Mosin`s rifle 1891-1930 build.
When it comes to our airforce, it`s not a big secret now that experiance of Spanish war was wrongfully adopted. In Spain fought our best of the best, very experianced pilots, true aces in full meaning of this word. They could successfully fight even on outdated planes and acheive victories in airbattles. Actually encounters in the skies of Spain already showed inferiority our planes toward their german opponents.
Of couse, long distance flights completed by Gromov, Chkalov and Grizodubova were a big success for our country. But were they truly reflecting condition of our military aviation? All those planes were build specifically to acheive all those records and could not be used in the military as is. For example the height (altitude) record by Kokinakki , that plane had everything removed to make it lighter, even pilots seat was made out of cloth materials. Regardless, all those acheivemnts were making us happy and careless.
Stalin controlled all military business and gently speaking would not allow anyone in it, making all calls himself. Besides that, great impact on him had influences of heroes of Civil War..like Bydenniy, Voroshilov, Kuklik, who didn`t study modern military around the world and were far behind of actual level of requirements in military knowledge. Almost till beginning of GPW they thought that main force in combat is cavalry and most manueverable too. Role of tanks was greatly underestimated. The most talented military commanders - Egorov, Tuchachevsky, Blucher, Yakir, Uborevich were anounced as an Enemy of the State and killed or sent to Siberia. Many talented military leaders were repressed in pre-war era.
Everywhere our aviation was called "Hawks of Stalin". Soviet airforce was especially loved by Stalin, maybe it was good, but critical role in the failure of our forces played Narkom (People`s Comissar) of our airplane building industry Kaganovich, barerly orginized and not educated. Shachurin replaced him right in the beginning of the war, but it was too late, no time to change anything.
Also frequent change of command in VVS was part of the problem. Just in 3 years command of VVS changed 5 times! Periods of new command were becoming shorter and shorter. Most of them were delcared Enemy of the state and repressed.
On December 15th 1938 V.P Chkalov was killed in the test flight of very perspective new fighter with exellent flight characteristcs which was designed by Polikarpov. (I-185) Then that plane had line of other failures. But even Chkalov was partially responcible for his own death, group of Polikarpov started to give up thier positions (read got in the dark side of Stalin) and all future plane from him did not get implemented.
I think that all of the above and many other factors caused our inferiority. Our bombers were very weak, the planes that saw mass production were SB, DB and SU-2. Most of the regiments were completed with DB and SB bombers and new PE-2 bombers were only handfull. TU-2 Bombers were received in great numbers only at the end of 1942.
An IL-2 was a great plane and successfully finished all field trials, but because of some misunderstanding it went into production without rear gunner and that`s why we lost so many of them without any reason. Only in beginning of 1943 IL-2s with rear gunner started to arrive in massive numbers.
Before the war, from our three new fighters Mig-3, Lagg-3 and Yak-1 the weakest one was Yak-1, as they tought...but in reality it turned out complete opposite. Mig-3 had good flight characteristics at 4000m and above but enemy planes would not go on that altitude and in fights down low Mig was too heavy. Lagg-3 turned out to be too heavy as well. Generally speaking was made its own significant corrections.
Yak3 fighter took a lot of changes and modernizaions thruout the war: Yak-7, Yak-9, Yak-3. Those fighters were produced in great numbers and were excellent in combat. Great fighters La5 and La7 arrived in the front lines only at the second stage of war.
So, soviet military industry produced only 45% of new fighters in 1941. Even taking under consideration all weak sides of new planes, numbers that were produced were extremely low.
Our primary plane builders were located in Moscow, Voronezh, Zaporozhie, Ribinsk, Saratov. In the first stage of war all of them were within a reach of german airforce and had to be evacuated further into USSR either completely or partially.
According to my sources same thing, maybe even worse was happening in the production of tanks and artillery. There was a major shortage of armor and ammo, all kinds of ammo. Very often commanders of regiments were forced to drag artillery around without any ammo for it...had to drag it with them...still, those were weapons, but nothing to shoot with. Great shortage of hand weapons, production of machineguns just started to take off.
Few words of "Surpize" Attack fo Germany.
In the middle of the June of 1941 Germany finished strategic positioning on their forces on the border of USSR. We were facing 166 divisions and 4 air Fleets ready to advance. Basically our opponents was ready for immediate military actions.
Did we know about it? How could we not? Other question is..what did we do and did not. German Airforce was entering our airrspace on daly bases in the depth of 150-250km. Our fighters were sitting on airfields in "Ready#1" mode and were requesting take off... but not only they could not shoot, they were not even allowed to take off by directives from "above".
In the same time, our lines of deffence were dismounted in 1939 and new ones were not build in time of attack, did not have enough time. And then, in the morning of June22nd 1941 Germans advanced into our territory with unbelievable force.
All summer of 1941 Red army was retreating back, sometimes organized, sometimes not.. formed resources, getting strenght and experiance...."

*********************************************

Pretty interesting IMO.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 01:43 PM
Another view on the subject by HSU PStigo.
Taken and translated from his memoirs, go easy on me, i am not a pro http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

**********************************************
"In early 40s The level of our technology was much lover then Germany had at that time
And that`s exactly why german fighters ME-109 we much better then our I-16, I-153 and even new Lagg-3. German bombers JU-88 and HE-111 were completely superior to our TB-1, TB-2, TB-3, SU-2, SB-5.
German tanks were inferior to our T-34s, but we had so few of those, it`s a shame.
Germany was producing automatic weapons in great scale, while our command were pretty sure that we can acheive victory with Mosin`s rifle 1891-1930 build.
When it comes to our airforce, it`s not a big secret now that experiance of Spanish war was wrongfully adopted. In Spain fought our best of the best, very experianced pilots, true aces in full meaning of this word. They could successfully fight even on outdated planes and acheive victories in airbattles. Actually encounters in the skies of Spain already showed inferiority our planes toward their german opponents.
Of couse, long distance flights completed by Gromov, Chkalov and Grizodubova were a big success for our country. But were they truly reflecting condition of our military aviation? All those planes were build specifically to acheive all those records and could not be used in the military as is. For example the height (altitude) record by Kokinakki , that plane had everything removed to make it lighter, even pilots seat was made out of cloth materials. Regardless, all those acheivemnts were making us happy and careless.
Stalin controlled all military business and gently speaking would not allow anyone in it, making all calls himself. Besides that, great impact on him had influences of heroes of Civil War..like Bydenniy, Voroshilov, Kuklik, who didn`t study modern military around the world and were far behind of actual level of requirements in military knowledge. Almost till beginning of GPW they thought that main force in combat is cavalry and most manueverable too. Role of tanks was greatly underestimated. The most talented military commanders - Egorov, Tuchachevsky, Blucher, Yakir, Uborevich were anounced as an Enemy of the State and killed or sent to Siberia. Many talented military leaders were repressed in pre-war era.
Everywhere our aviation was called "Hawks of Stalin". Soviet airforce was especially loved by Stalin, maybe it was good, but critical role in the failure of our forces played Narkom (People`s Comissar) of our airplane building industry Kaganovich, barerly orginized and not educated. Shachurin replaced him right in the beginning of the war, but it was too late, no time to change anything.
Also frequent change of command in VVS was part of the problem. Just in 3 years command of VVS changed 5 times! Periods of new command were becoming shorter and shorter. Most of them were delcared Enemy of the state and repressed.
On December 15th 1938 V.P Chkalov was killed in the test flight of very perspective new fighter with exellent flight characteristcs which was designed by Polikarpov. (I-185) Then that plane had line of other failures. But even Chkalov was partially responcible for his own death, group of Polikarpov started to give up thier positions (read got in the dark side of Stalin) and all future plane from him did not get implemented.
I think that all of the above and many other factors caused our inferiority. Our bombers were very weak, the planes that saw mass production were SB, DB and SU-2. Most of the regiments were completed with DB and SB bombers and new PE-2 bombers were only handfull. TU-2 Bombers were received in great numbers only at the end of 1942.
An IL-2 was a great plane and successfully finished all field trials, but because of some misunderstanding it went into production without rear gunner and that`s why we lost so many of them without any reason. Only in beginning of 1943 IL-2s with rear gunner started to arrive in massive numbers.
Before the war, from our three new fighters Mig-3, Lagg-3 and Yak-1 the weakest one was Yak-1, as they tought...but in reality it turned out complete opposite. Mig-3 had good flight characteristics at 4000m and above but enemy planes would not go on that altitude and in fights down low Mig was too heavy. Lagg-3 turned out to be too heavy as well. Generally speaking was made its own significant corrections.
Yak3 fighter took a lot of changes and modernizaions thruout the war: Yak-7, Yak-9, Yak-3. Those fighters were produced in great numbers and were excellent in combat. Great fighters La5 and La7 arrived in the front lines only at the second stage of war.
So, soviet military industry produced only 45% of new fighters in 1941. Even taking under consideration all weak sides of new planes, numbers that were produced were extremely low.
Our primary plane builders were located in Moscow, Voronezh, Zaporozhie, Ribinsk, Saratov. In the first stage of war all of them were within a reach of german airforce and had to be evacuated further into USSR either completely or partially.
According to my sources same thing, maybe even worse was happening in the production of tanks and artillery. There was a major shortage of armor and ammo, all kinds of ammo. Very often commanders of regiments were forced to drag artillery around without any ammo for it...had to drag it with them...still, those were weapons, but nothing to shoot with. Great shortage of hand weapons, production of machineguns just started to take off.
Few words of "Surpize" Attack fo Germany.
In the middle of the June of 1941 Germany finished strategic positioning on their forces on the border of USSR. We were facing 166 divisions and 4 air Fleets ready to advance. Basically our opponents was ready for immediate military actions.
Did we know about it? How could we not? Other question is..what did we do and did not. German Airforce was entering our airrspace on daly bases in the depth of 150-250km. Our fighters were sitting on airfields in "Ready#1" mode and were requesting take off... but not only they could not shoot, they were not even allowed to take off by directives from "above".
In the same time, our lines of deffence were dismounted in 1939 and new ones were not build in time of attack, did not have enough time. And then, in the morning of June22nd 1941 Germans advanced into our territory with unbelievable force.
All summer of 1941 Red army was retreating back, sometimes organized, sometimes not.. formed resources, getting strenght and experiance...."

*********************************************

Pretty interesting IMO.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

zugfuhrer
02-11-2004, 01:52 PM
Lucky those bad days are over and we all can look forward to a better future.
I think that you with all your impressing knowledge have a theory. Let us know

clint-ruin
02-11-2004, 01:59 PM
Excellent brief writeup, thanks for posting it CrazyIvan.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

georgeo76
02-11-2004, 02:03 PM
Thanks Ivan. It's nice to read history's from different prospectives, and w/o your translations many of us would never be able to read the memoirs of Pstigo. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's posts like this that got me active in this community in the first place. GD is a great place to learn about WWII aviation and history in general. All you have to do is wade through all the crap post to find valuable nuggets like this one.


http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/buck2.gif
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. "
Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

BfHeFwMe
02-11-2004, 02:12 PM
I find it surprising he didn't bother to mention the Finland debacle. It wasn't like them and the Germans didn't already know the deficiencies well in advance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They had a chance to correct these known problems, and blew it royal.

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I find it surprising he didn't bother to mention the Finland debacle. It wasn't like them and the Germans didn't already know the deficiencies well in advance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They had a chance to correct these known problems, and blew it royal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Conflict with Finland is something that nobody is being honest about and i highly doubt that it proves anything. Finns saying they kicked everyone arses, soviet saying that finns never had a chance... info is too biased on either side..

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

clint-ruin
02-11-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I find it surprising he didn't bother to mention the Finland debacle. It wasn't like them and the Germans didn't already know the deficiencies well in advance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They had a chance to correct these known problems, and blew it royal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's basically what happens when states decide that their ideology is more important than reality - the lessons from Finland and Spain were learned by quite a few people on the soviet side, but very few people with the political power to actually do anything about it - as mentioned above, the soviets own revolutionary civil war experience after WWI was used as the main basis of defence policy for a very long time, and this was a war that really couldn't be more different from having gigantic fast moving armored columns carving up the countryside. Unfortunately, it's hard to influence policy from the Gulag. Mechanised warfare in general almost completely passed the soviets by, conceptually, until quite late in 42 or even later in some operations. Things such as concentration of armour, mobility, training, artillery, flanking, supply lines, reserves, take your pick - very few people competant in their use were actually in place and able to make sure they were done properly. Most books on the eastern front cover this total systemic failure to some degree.

It should be pointed out that they're far from the only state in the history of the world to make such a mistake, though in this case the number of dead people required to realise the error was pretty mind boggling.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-11-2004, 02:54 PM
"Germany was producing automatic weapons in great scale, while our command were pretty sure that we can acheive victory with Mosin`s rifle 1891-1930 build. "

Depends on what sort of automatic weapons you
mean. Russian LMG doctrine was behind that
of that of Germany, and the MG34 was a better
weapon than Soviet LMGs of 1941, but the SVT40
was expected to be the replacement for the
Mosin 1891/30. Ironically the SVT40 provided
the basis for the Kar43 which replaced the
abortive Gw41 in German use, but German was
reliant on the Kar43 as the standard rifle until
the war's end, and the Russians produced an
excellent series of SMGs too. It was only the
USA that really successfully deployed semi
automatic rifles in WW2 as a standard arm.

LEXX_Luthor
02-11-2004, 02:57 PM
A Happy Contradiction... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"In early 40s The level of our technology was much lover then Germany..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>German tanks were inferior to our T-34s, but we had so few of those...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will argue T~34 was inferior technology to what Germany was using in the Panzers, but T~34 was a better war fighting combat machine, although probably because of German political Molestation similar to Stalin's and Voroshilov's in USSR. "Technology" is nothing. Design is everything. Further, the German Army was not the High Tech Wonder we see in the Panzer column footage.

DE-MODERNIZATION OF GERMAN ARMY...even in 1941...

---&gt; http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content4.php/cid=68

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Two-thirds of the German infantry divisions ordered into Russia in 1941 were unmechanized. Their wagons were hitched to German draught horses that proved unable to survive the poor fodder and winter weather in Russia; farms all over Europe were scoured for replacements, but only eastern European ponies could endure the climate.
:
:
Secondly, Operation Barbarossa was undertaken with the proceeds of the biggest auto theft in history. German mechanization had been increased, not just by adding the Pz.38(t) tank from the famous Skoda works, but by seizing vehicles from all over occupied Europe. The consequence was that the invading forces were using over 2,000 different types of vehicle, few sharing common parts. This problem never went away,...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 02:58 PM
I don`t mean anything Aaron, i`m just a humble translator lol.
Not a big small arms expert either.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

p1ngu666
02-11-2004, 03:14 PM
a great book called steel fist has some of these things in, lent it to a mate so i cant give isbn etc http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
really good feature of t34 was sloping armour, solid engine that just worked most of the time, wide tracks.
german tanks just stopped working in the cold..
oh and stalingrad book i got has alot of pics with german soliders using russian weapons

http://www.pingu666.etglobalsolution.co.uk/sig/mysig3.jpg

LeadSpitter_
02-11-2004, 04:13 PM
great post but the red mafias gunna hunt you down ivan for revealing it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

PzKpfw
02-11-2004, 04:35 PM
In most cases German tanks were superior to Soviet tanks In 1941 - 1942 as in the Soviet's did not translate their tank's advantages into operational sucess.

the Soviet T-34/KV-1 advantages in gun/armor/mobility; the German main tanks the PzKpfw III 50L/42/L60 & PzKpfw IV 7L/24

But the Soviets didnt have the experience in crews or leadership to take advantage of their tanks advantages over the Germans at the operational level. Despite the German tank & AT inferiority in gun, armor, and mobility.

Soviet tanks lacked C&C as they had no radios except in most cases in the command tanks, Soviet tactical orders in the Tank Brigades, Regts etc was passed on by use of signal flags etc.

German tanks on the other hand had radios and were able to cordinate movements down to the Co, zug level, Ie, a German tank leader could cordinate 3 tanks to fire on one target, the Soviets could not. German tank crews were much better trained as well, with three man turret crews vs Soviet 2 man turret crews in the T-34-76.

An exaple of Soviet tank crew training, or lack of it was, an general Soviet report dated June 17 1941 on the status of armored formations in the Military districs, concerning the 'Frontier' districts' compromising the Baltic, Westren, Kiev, & Odessa reigons reported:

- Training is intermittant and uncoordinated.

- Gunnery instruction is running two to three months behind schedule.

- Coordination between troops within units is bad.

- The mechanized (motorized rifle) regiments have no conception of their proper role.

- Wireless operators are inadequately trained.

And this is only a small example from the report. Ie, tank drivers in the Baltic MD alone; alone averaged a mere 1-1/2 hours driveing time. Divisional units were missing 50% of their Shtat levels of NCO's & junior officers etc. Tank crew training was almost non existant as the MDs, reported they did not have the AFVs available or the fuel to train with.

Add to that the material shortages, Ie in Febuary 1941 the Soviets issued an requirement for 61 tank Divs, requireing 3,843 KV & 12,810 T-34. As of June 1 1941, a total of 263 KV-1 , 70 KV-II, & 1,085 T-34 had been produced.

How did the effect Soviet operations on June 22 1941, well in 3 weeks of fighting, the Soviet armored formations were decimated. The Mechanized Corp HQs, were ordered disbanded on July 15 1941.

The Tank Divisions; were basicly gone by the end of July, with the few remaining in the Fronts operateing at Brigada strength or less. many Soviet tanks went into battle with no AP ammunition etc, as well.

From June 22 1941, thru Dec 31 1941, the Soviets lose 20,500 tanks broken down as, 900 heavy tanks, 2,300 mediums, 17,300 Lt. tanks 72% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

Most of the T-34 etc, that operated in small numbers were lost due to mechanichal breakdowns, lack of fuel, abandonment etc. Despite the Soviet Heavy, & meduim tanks advantages in gun/armor/mobility etc, it did not translate into success operationaly nor impact the outcome of the fighting. It wasn't till late 1942 when T-34 operated in mass with mechnichal defects, crew training etc adressed that the T-34 began to make an operational impact.

Even so losses were heavy Ie, from January 1, 1942 - December 31, 1942, the Soviets lose 15,000 tanks broken down as, 1,200 Heavy tanks, 6,600 Medium tanks, & 7,200 Lt. tanks 42.13% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

Regards, John Waters

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 04:47 PM
Hola Pzkfpw, haven`t seen ya in ages man. Hiding somewhere?
If you see from what`s this guy is saying ...he talks about individual characteristics of the tank itself. T-34 was superior to German panzers... but it doesn`t mean that soviet tank units were. Lack of T-34s, shortage of fuel, oil and ammo and radio...all good points. Not going to argue that at all.

"Even so losses were heavy Ie, from January 1, 1942 - December 31, 1942, the Soviets lose 15,000 tanks broken down as, 1,200 Heavy tanks, 6,600 Medium tanks, & 7,200 Lt. tanks 42.13% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost."

I am not sure where you get all those numbers all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Who counted? I don`t even think that USSR had that many tanks in its arsenal in 1942 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Recon_609IAP
02-11-2004, 04:52 PM
great stuff - I love this as it gives insight into the war we don't see very often.

Thanks Ivan!

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

PzKpfw
02-11-2004, 05:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Hola Pzkfpw, haven`t seen ya in ages man. Hiding somewhere?

Work has curtailed my timre to browse boards etc.



"I am not sure where you get all those numbers all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Who counted? I don`t even think that USSR had that many tanks in its arsenal in 1942 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"

V!
Regards,"


Ivan all armies keep track of losses etc. The Soviets were no exception. Concerning Soviet Data I reccomend:

Krivosheev G.F. "Grif sekretnosti sniat: Poteri vooruzhennykk sil SSSR v voinakh, boevykh deistviiakh, i voennykl konfliktakh". (Losses of the armed forces of the USSR in wars, combat actions, and military conflicts). Moscow: Voenizdat, 1993.

Dunn Walter "Hitler's Nemesis: The Red Army 1930 - 1945" Wesport: Praeger, 1994.

Gryler, A.N. "Boevoi Sostav Sovetskoii Armii" (Combat Composition of the Soviet Army) Volumes 1 - 5 Moscow: Voenno-Nauchnoe Upravlenie General ' nogo Shtba(Military History Directorate of the General Staff).

Krupchenko, I.B. "Sovetskiye Tankovvve Voiska 1941 - 1945" (Soviet Tank Forces 1941 - 1945) Moscow: Voenizdat, 1973.

Losik, O.A. "Stroitel'stvo i Boevoe Primenenie Sovetskikh Tankovvkh Voisk v gody Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voiny" (Construction and Military Use of Soviet Tank Forces During the Great Patriotic War). Moscow: Voenizdat 1979.



As to Tank/SU losses losses Ie:

From January 1 1943, thru Dec 31 1943, the Soviets lost 22,400* tanks broken down as follows, 1,300 Heavy tanks, 14,700 Medium tanks, & 6,400 Lt. tanks. 51.50% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1 1944, thru Dec 31 1944, the Soviets lost 16,900* tanks, broken down as 900 Heavy tanks, 13,800 Medium tanks, & 2,300 Lt. tanks. 40% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1 1945, thru May 10, 1945, the Soviets lost *8,700 tanks broken down as follows, 900 Heavy tanks, 7,500 Meduim tanks, 300 Lt. tanks, 25.7% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

*Totals do not include SU loss totals, below is SU Production & losses in ( )'s:

1943 - 4,400 (1,100) 25%%
1944 - 16,900 (6,800) 40.2%
1945 - 15,900 (5,000) 33%

Total Tank/SU losses combined 1943 - 1945 were:
1943 - 22,500
1944 - 23,700
1945 - 13,700

We also have data on Soviet tank crew casualties etc Ie:

**Tank/SU Crew losses by year, total crews, & total men, & total repair crews KIA/WIA/MIA:

1941:

Total crews - 5,152
Total men - 15,749

1942:

Total crews - 41,193
Total men - 83,205

1943:

Total crews - 38,404
Total men - 96,877

1944:

Total crews - 44,818
Total men - 126,004

1945:

Total crews - 30,027
Total men - 81,437

Total tank/SU/Repair crews lost - 159,594
Total men KIA/WIA/MIA - 403,272

**See: Dunn Walter S. Hitler's Nemesis p.152

Regards, John Waters

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 05:35 PM
You never come unprepared mate hehe, thanks for the book name, will read it.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=591246&cat=20780&type=3&dept=3920&path=0%3A3920%3A18748%3A18753%3A20780


V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

BerkshireHunt
02-11-2004, 07:43 PM
"In the middle of the June of 1941 Germany finished strategic positioning on their forces on the border of USSR. We were facing 166 divisions and 4 air Fleets ready to advance."

"And then, in the morning of June22nd 1941 Germans advanced into our territory with unbelievable force."

This old Ivan conveniently forgets that Russia had occupied the eastern part of Poland in 1939 whilst Germany took the west (agreed by Hitler and Stalin). What's this crap about 'the border of the USSR' and 'our territory'? The Germans couldn't get to Russia without first crossing a large part of eastern Poland. Let's not forget that the NKVD executed 27,500 Poles in 1940 on Stalin's orders (Katyn Massacre). Russia was a predatory empire- building state at that time just as much as Germany. They had recently invaded Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, partitioned Romania, and had tried to take Finland. Russians of that generation are very keen talk about the glory of the Great Patriotic War but rather forgetful of the blood on their hands.

Menthol_moose
02-11-2004, 07:58 PM
stalin's severe purges of the armed forces , and especially veteran offices definately didnt help.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Vladimir_No2
02-11-2004, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
They had recently invaded Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, partitioned Romania, and had tried to take Finland. Russians of that generation are very keen talk about the glory of the Great Patriotic War but rather forgetful of the blood on their hands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They invaded Estonia in direct violation of the Tartu Teaty. You make a rather valid point, Russia and Germany were similar totalitarian powers.

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

RicknZ
02-11-2004, 10:30 PM
Im sick of the myth that the t-34 was a better tank than the pzIIIH+ and pzIVF2+.

In a perfect world found only in games like command and conquer and rise of nations, then yes the T34 was better.

But in the world the blue pill shows you tanks are crewed by men and men needed: communications, ease of use, visibility, ROF accessability etc etc etc to make a tank function.

In all pratical regards german tanks were far superior to russian tanks accept on paper. Which is also why i believe the sherman was also superior to the T34.

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
"In the middle of the June of 1941 Germany finished strategic positioning on their forces on the border of USSR. We were facing 166 divisions and 4 air Fleets ready to advance."

"And then, in the morning of June22nd 1941 Germans advanced into our territory with unbelievable force."

This old Ivan conveniently forgets that Russia had occupied the eastern part of Poland in 1939 whilst Germany took the west (agreed by Hitler and Stalin). What's this crap about 'the border of the USSR' and 'our territory'? The Germans couldn't get to Russia without first crossing a large part of eastern Poland. Let's not forget that the NKVD executed 27,500 Poles in 1940 on Stalin's orders (Katyn Massacre). Russia was a predatory empire- building state at that time just as much as Germany. They had recently invaded Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, partitioned Romania, and had tried to take Finland. Russians of that generation are very keen talk about the glory of the Great Patriotic War but rather forgetful of the blood on their hands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point of this post was not exactly this, but yes, blood was on the hands of soviets and probably not less of it then in Hitler`s hands if not more. Hitler was a baby comparing to Stalin in many aspects and nobody denies it anymore.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
Im sick of the myth that the t-34 was a better tank than the pzIIIH+ and pzIVF2+.

In a perfect world found only in games like command and conquer and rise of nations, then yes the T34 was better.

But in the world the blue pill shows you tanks are crewed by men and men needed: communications, ease of use, visibility, ROF accessability etc etc etc to make a tank function.

In all pratical regards german tanks were far superior to russian tanks accept on paper. Which is also why i believe the sherman was also superior to the T34.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don`t make me laugh, if you sick listening about it, don`t listen.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

HansKnappstick
02-12-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
Im sick of the myth that the t-34 was a better tank than the pzIIIH+ and pzIVF2+.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think no one compares PzIV F2 to a T34 early series. There was no Pz IV F2 in 1941. The best AT tank on the German side was Pz III G, but they were unable to combat a T34 one-on-one, also they weren't many. But such combats hardly ever occur in a real war.
T34 had the advantage of armour, which was not only thick but also shaped properly.
German tanks were equipped in radio and optical gadgets the Soviets could only dream off.
But this plays down to differences in the doctrine. Germans were never thinking of lone fighting tanks. It was a combined warfare, where tanks after breaking through should operate in the enemy's rear areas, thus radio and speed rather than armour or gun were necessary.
Soviets, on the other hand understood that people who know too much die early thus they didn't install radios. Moreover they knew how their roads look like especially in autumn and designed their tanks accordingly ;o) Seriously, the soviet doctrine was to perform massed frontal attacks, thus you need a good armor and a decent gun; a radio is not necessary since you know where the enemy is; if you destroy him and survive you stop and wait for the orders.
All of us know which doctrine performed better.

(FIN)-Cowboy
02-12-2004, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
Im sick of the myth that the t-34 was a better tank than the pzIIIH+ and pzIVF2+.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then don't think of it as a myth, accept it as a truth as Guderian, Kleist and several other German generals in '41 did when they compared T-34 to their Panzer IIIs and IVs. Also note: IVF2 was not in production until March of '42, the Germans were using IVD in '41.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In all pratical regards german tanks were far superior to russian tanks accept on paper.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Practical regards like armour, main gun and mobility in which all T-34 was better than German tanks at the time? Later German models were better, but not by much even then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Which is also why i believe the sherman was also superior to the T34.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until this point I was thinking you might be serious; Americans made some excellent machines, but Sherman wasn't one of them. The only reason Shermans managed to beat Tigers and Panthers was, as Stalin put it, "there's a certain quality in quantity".

However, a note on T-34's mobility: the tank's excellent track layout was based on earlier BT tanks, which in turn had copied theirs straight from American J. Walter Christie's designs.

Rajvosa
02-12-2004, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
Im sick of the myth that the t-34 was a better tank than the pzIIIH+ and pzIVF2+.

In a perfect world found only in games like command and conquer and rise of nations, then yes the T34 was better.

But in the world the blue pill shows you tanks are crewed by men and men needed: communications, ease of use, visibility, ROF accessability etc etc etc to make a tank function.

In all pratical regards german tanks were far superior to russian tanks accept on paper. Which is also why i believe the sherman was also superior to the T34.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Guys, don't take this kid too seriously. Every now and then we read this kind of stupid, non constructive posts from people that obviously have no clue what they are talking about.

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

clint-ruin
02-12-2004, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Point of this post was not exactly this, but yes, blood was on the hands of soviets and probably not less of it then in Hitler`s hands if not more. Hitler was a baby comparing to Stalin in many aspects and nobody denies it anymore.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably about as valid as taking an attack on Hawaii in 41 as an attack on US territory. Or the phillipines for that matter too.... or singapore as british territory.

Colonialism wasn't quite as dirty a word then as now :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Rajvosa
02-12-2004, 03:22 AM
Hm, Japanese may not have attacked American territory when they hit Hawaii, but they definitely attacked American military... that is usaualy a valid reason to go to war.

Just a thought.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Ankanor
02-12-2004, 03:44 AM
Talking about the Pearl Harbor raid, the Japanese gave Roosvelt a perfect way of joining the war. I believe that every nation would stand as one against the invader that "attacked us without any warning, we were unprepared, unarmed". So why would you send all your Carriers, the best weapon you got, away from the place that is to be wrecked?

About the tanks, the Russians had about 24000 tanks in the beginning. So if that is unpreparedness, what would the Red Army commanders consider ready for battle Tank Force?40 000 T-34 plus 10 000 KV-1/KV-2 perhaps. By the way the Russians had more T-34 than the Germans had tanks!!!
Another thing is that the German Army had no heavies. Russians had 300 but at least they had some. I remember reading somewhere about a Russian Heavy tank that was halting the advance of the Germans to Leningrad. 1 Tank!

[This message was edited by Ankanor on Thu February 12 2004 at 02:54 AM.]

Rajvosa
02-12-2004, 03:52 AM
Ankanor,

are you trying to tell that US knew about the attack and deliberately happened to send all the carriers on an excercise at the time of attack? I think that would be a little too cynical thing to do. Either you warn everyone or no one.

As we all know, people at Pearl Harbor were taken completely by surprise, cvilians and military alike. If Roosevelt knew about the attack and sent his most valuable weapons away while keeping the vast majority of people unawares about the attack... nah, I don't buy it!

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Cajun76
02-12-2004, 03:56 AM
Up until WWII, most naval analysts predicted huge naval fights with the dreadnoughts. Carriers were more of a novelty. Useful as mobil airfeilds with the ability to project force at a distance. But without using our advantage of hindsight, carriers were thought at the time to be a support component, not the centerpiece of a task force, like today.

However, way off topic. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Ankanor
02-12-2004, 04:29 AM
US intelligence had the texts of the Diplomatic documents that were sent to the Embassy in Washington translated in English before the Japanese had decoded them in Japanese. I mean the documents for the declaration of War to the USA. Also, when they received them, Admiral Kimmel, the CINCPAC(Commander-In-Chief, PACific) was sent a note that the Japs were "preparing something". But the note was not sent via the Navy's fastest connection, but via the Ordinary commercial telegraphic. The note was received at about 10 o'clock on the 7th of December, half an hour After The attack had finished.
It is not the best comparison, but it is like we talk over MSN Messenger with the camera attached and I see someone behind you that is going to stab you with a big knife, and I send you a letter over the post.

Too many coincidences...

Cajun, during the navy maneuvers in 1931(may be mistaken about the year) the US admiral that was "attacking" PH did the following: He left his battleships behind, started with the carriers(at the time 3- Langley, Saratoga and Lexington) and raided the base, attacking at dawn, first disabling the airfields, then hitting the ships. the next day he "landed troops" with no resistance at all.
In 1936, during the same maneuvers, the attacking admiral did the same thing. The coordinators of the wargame judged that the defending side was defeated completely, the attackers had lost a single battleship.
Yes, the Japs learned how to attack PH from the Americans.

Sorry to hijack your thread CrazyIvan. did not mean to. Can I still come and play on your coops? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

Skarphol
02-12-2004, 04:41 AM
Hi Ivan!

Thanks a bunch for makeing these translations of yours! They are really good reading, and is a one of the main reasons i browse these forums everyday.
I've done som translation myself, and know it's really a lot of work to find the right words, when english is your second language.

When it comes to the discussion of different tanks on this thread, I must say that the technical data of the tanks are just a small part of the story; numbers, training, tactics and morale is a huge part of the big picture too.

Skarphol

clint-ruin
02-12-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skarphol:
When it comes to the discussion of different tanks on this thread, I must say that the technical data of the tanks are just a small part of the story; numbers, training, tactics and morale is a huge part of the big picture too.

Skarphol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, a few moments reading on the actual conflict will confirm what you said.

T-34s and KV-1s are nice tanks, but if they're commited to direct frontal assaults, one or two at a time, with untrained crews and bugger all fuel and ammo, things don't tend to work out quite as nicely as it would seem from their paper specs.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Slush69
02-12-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
But this plays down to differences in the doctrine. Germans were never thinking of lone fighting tanks. It was a combined warfare, where tanks after breaking through should operate in the enemy's rear areas, thus radio and speed rather than armour or gun were necessary.
Soviets, on the other hand understood that people who know too much die early thus they didn't install radios. Moreover they knew how their roads look like especially in autumn and designed their tanks accordingly ;o) Seriously, the soviet doctrine was to perform massed frontal attacks, thus you need a good armor and a decent gun; a radio is not necessary since you know where the enemy is; if you destroy him and survive you stop and wait for the orders.
All of us know which doctrine performed better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone interested in Soviet military doctrine prior to World War Two should read Storm of Steel by Mary Habeck and Stumbling Colossus by David Glantz.

Prior to the war the Soviets had a very sophisticated armoured doctrine that basically operated with 3 groups: One that pinned down the enemy, one that flanked them and one that continued the drive in the enemy rear. None of which involved any frontal attacks.

Most German accounts of the early war mention desperate flank attacks by the Soviets, woefully uncoordinated, yes, but not mindless zombie frontal assaults. Those came later when the Red Army in desperation had to use wave after wave of more or less untrained recruits at places like Stalingrad.

Obviously Soviet frontal assaults took place, but it's simply plain wrong to call it an official doctrine. While tactical performance, especially early on, left a lot to be desired, Soviet operational and strategic planning wasn't bad. Lack of supplies, communication equipment, experienced frontline officers and training had a greater influence on Soviet performance than a lack of advanced military thinking.

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

Cajun76
02-12-2004, 06:43 AM
I don't have the time or resources right now, (Edit: Ankanor), though I find your 'coincidences' lacking some important details, as well as being rather provocative. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif However, we should start a new thread, PM, or email if we're going to discuss it. Sleep calls to me, as well as a long day tomorrow. 5km 'fun run' included. Cheers, and stay away from the conspiracy sites, they're interesting reading, but tend to play to our worst fears. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Btw, I like this aspect of the forums. A discussion of the EF land war, and the tactics, methods, and equipment used. Interesting stuff, keep it coming. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: Sorry 'bout the misspell, the spell checker didn't flag it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Good luck with your exam. Oh, and it's 'alligator' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

[This message was edited by Cajun76 on Thu February 12 2004 at 06:08 AM.]

JorBR
02-12-2004, 06:55 AM
As someone pointed out Stalin purges in the thirties cut of the red armrnyÔ┬┤s think tank. Worst than that, purges led to fear and fear led to blind obedience and lack of initiave, a capital sin in movement war.

Survivors like Jukov were exceptions.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

Ankanor
02-12-2004, 06:56 AM
Not in the mood, I got a Math Exam tomorrow(keep fingers crossed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), gotta study
I think of having another nick... This one seems difficult to spell http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
See you later, (aligator)

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.

SpinSpinSugar
02-12-2004, 07:02 AM
Never mind tanks, I immediately had to go and Google a TB-1 after reading that.

Seems not much changed from there to a TB-3, also the "carrying parasite fighters" concept was alive and well back then, too.

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelArticles/Duffy/Zveno1/index.php

Cheers, SSS

AndyHigh
02-12-2004, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Conflict with Finland is something that nobody is being honest about and i highly doubt that it proves anything. Finns saying they kicked everyone arses, soviet saying that finns never had a chance... info is too biased on either side..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if the info is biased in soviet time history writing it doesn't mean that finnish history writing would be that too. I don't think Finns need to be dishonest about winter war by any means especially as the cold war has ended. Even Krutshov admitted that Soviet Union lost about 1 million man againts Finland (don't know in what timeframe he meant).
Finnish research talk about 200 000 dead Russian soldiers against 25 000 dead Finns in Winter War. VVS tried to take all of Finland (not just area around Leningrad) but they failed badly.

Russian troops weren't really trained for winter warfare but they learned hard from this lesson. Also russian submachine gun which was a copy of Lahti's Suomi (=Finland) M31 smg (drawings stolen in early 30's by spys) was taken into mass production after Winter War experience.

crazyivan1970
02-12-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Conflict with Finland is something that nobody is being honest about and i highly doubt that it proves anything. Finns saying they kicked everyone arses, soviet saying that finns never had a chance... info is too biased on either side..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if the info is biased in soviet time history writing it doesn't mean that finnish history writing would be that too. I don't think Finns need to be dishonest about winter war by any means especially as the cold war has ended. Even Krutshov admitted that Soviet Union lost about 1 million man againts Finland (don't know in what timeframe he meant).
Finnish research talk about 200 000 dead Russian soldiers against 25 000 dead Finns in Winter War. VVS tried to take all of Finland (not just area around Leningrad) but they failed badly.

Russian troops weren't really trained for winter warfare but they learned hard from this lesson. Also russian submachine gun which was a copy of Lahti's Suomi (=Finland) M31 smg (drawings stolen in early 30's by spys) was taken into mass production after Winter War experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s exactly what i am talking about mate, and that`s exactly why i`m staying away from discussions about soviet-finnish conflict http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

clint-ruin
02-12-2004, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slush69:
Obviously Soviet frontal assaults took place, but it's simply plain wrong to call it an official doctrine. While tactical performance, especially early on, left a lot to be desired, Soviet operational and strategic planning wasn't bad. Lack of supplies, communication equipment, experienced frontline officers and training had a greater influence on Soviet performance than a lack of advanced military thinking.

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, haven't read that particular Glantz book.

Everything I've read otherwise has made reference to Zukov repeatedly having to issue directives along the lines of:

Comrades, if you are going to keep insisting on making frontal assaults, please stop copying them verbatim from the diagrams in your combat manual.

Road to Stalingrad also spends about the first 1/4 of the book going over the political infighting around the use of armour at various conferences, at least from the version of events in that book, it appears that whatever "advances" were decided upon, there was noone left to actually implement them.

I would tend to take the position that the 'official version' of military doctrine is the one the lowest units of command are aware they're supposed to use.

When do you think soviets stopped issuing armour piecemeal, less than 4 tanks at a time, as infantry support rather than armoured units?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

PzKpfw
02-12-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tylymiez:

Until this point I was thinking you might be serious; Americans made some excellent machines, but Sherman wasn't one of them. The only reason Shermans managed to beat Tigers and Panthers was, as Stalin put it, "there's a certain quality in quantity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most amature armor enthusiasts frequenting boards etc, would tell you that the T-34-85 was superior to the M4A2 in armor, gunpower,& mobility.

Problem is Soviet Internal reports on the Sherman state the Sherman was superior to the T-34-85 in several key areas:

- Turret traverse speed.
- Optics.
- Ammo stowage capacity.
- Ammo stowage protection.
- *Better penetration performance.
- Mechanichly more reliable.

The US 76mm gun out penetrated the 85mm Ie,

*In Soviet live fire tests vs Tiger II @ Kubinka US "76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."

Whats not generaly known is the T-34-85 suffered a breakdown rate comparible to the Panther Ausf.D during zitadelle. One report comments the Shermans track shoes had a longer life then the T-34-85s engine which was measured in hours.

The main Soviet complaint on the Sherman was ground pressure, Ie, the T-34-85s wider tracks allowed it better X country performance in soft terrain conditions,Ie, 9th GMC frequently fell behind in soft terain areas during the Manchurian operation.

Also we can judge how effective the Soviets considered the M4A2 Sherman by it's internal test reports but more importantly how it was actualy employed Ie, Ask yourself why the Soviets would issue such an inferior tank to the elite of their armored forces. Ie, Shermans outfitted 3 of the 9 Guards Mechanized Corps formed in WW2. Ie:

- 1st GuardsMechanized corps, turned over its T-34-85 to 7th Mech Corps refitted with M4A2 Sherman in January 1945. Fought with 3rd Ukrainian Front across Hungary, Austria, & the takeing of Vienna,ended war with 4th Guards Army near Vienna.

- 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, turned in its T-34-76 & refitted with 196 M4A2 Sherman prior to June 22 1944(Bagration). Ended Bagration on the Polish-Lithuanian border on July 15 1944 with 192 M4A2 Sherman despite the heavy fighting. The unit citation praising3rd GMCs exploits read in part concerning its low losses "a tribute both to the efficiency ofthe corps maintenance support, and the reliability ofthe Sherman tanks". 3rd GMC then spent the rest of the war in the Baltic with 1st & 2nd Baltic Fronts until April- May 1945 where in the 'Kurland Group' on the Leningrad Front ending the war with its M4A2s on the TransBaikal Front with 6th Guards Tank Army.

- 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, was the last GMC formed in WW2 & built from the 5thMechanized Corps,& eqipped with the M4A2 Sherman from the begining in September 1944. Served with 6th Guards Tank Army for all its existance fought in Budapest,Vienna etc operations & ended the war with its M4A2 on the Yellow sea.

Their are many misconceptions about the Sherman as well as, the T-34-85 that are only heightened by coffee table books on armor etc, even more detailed works as well .


If one would like an comparison of how the 76mm gun on the Sherman performed, I direct you to Korea where M4A3E8 Shermans had no trouble whatsoever dealing with the T-34-85 at all battle ranges.


Now as to this quality over quantity I sugest an examination of the Lorraine campaign might be enlightning concerning how Shermans fared against the Panther Ie, the destruction of 4 Panzer Brigades useing PzKpfw IVs, Panthers & Pz IV/70, vs minimal Allied losses.


Ie, the destruction of both the 111th & 113th Pz. Brigades in 4 days (Sept 19- 22 1944) vs 4th Armored Divs CCA, 111, & 113 lost 83 tanks combined out of their original combined total of 90 PzKpfw V, & had 80 effectives left out the original compliment of 2,500 effectives.

4th Armored CCA losses were 14, M4 Sherman, 7, M5A1, & 113 casualties 25 KIA, 88 WIA. The 4th CCA destroyed the equivelent of 2 Panzer Brigades in this action, w/o air support etc.


Now Concerning the PzKpfw IV Lang Ie, F2, with the 7.5cm KwK.40 L/43 what it did was give the German tanks an gun capable of defeating the T-34. Other then that the F-2, G etc had no advantage over the T-34-76 except a 3 man crew and radios.

It would do well to remember neither the Sherman nor the T-34-85; was the 'equal' of the Panther in armor protection (except the Jumbo) or gun power (except the Firefly). And that both the Sherman 75/76 & T-34/76/85 were the equal and superior to the more common PzKpfw IV.


Regards, John Waters

crazyivan1970
02-12-2004, 11:17 AM
Interesting post PzKpfw, agree with many points here.. optics, lack of radio and main gun capabilites are important factors without doubt.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

JorBR
02-12-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Interesting post PzKpfw, agree with many points here.. optics, lack of radio and main gun capabilites are important factors without doubt.

V!
Regards,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting indeed. I read elsewhere that the Abrahms was so effective against the T-72 mostly because it could track and engage it beyond the former sighting systems capababilities.
Nevertheless, I would still prefer to hide a T-34 in combat, that sloping armor gives much more confidence than the ShermanÔ┬┤s vertical sides http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Btw, 76mm/Firefly werenÔ┬┤t the majority of Shermans in France/44, were they?

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

tttiger
02-12-2004, 01:23 PM
LOL, Ivan, congrats! Your post was one of the best trolls I've ever seen. Certainly brought all the history "experts" out of the woodwork and somehow got hijacked by the treadheads.

Regarding Hawaii (as I sit here looking out the window at it, as I do every day). True, it did not become a state until 1959 but it was taken away (with the help of the USMC) from the Hawaiians in 1893 and became a US territory in 1898 (Pearl Harbor became very attractive during the Spanish-American War). I believe the Japanese attacked US soil. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interesting post. Nothing I hadn't seen before, but a good first-hand viewpoint. The resulting babbling about tanks, Hawaii, Finland (I know it's important to them, but don't they realize what minor sideshow that war was in the middle of such a huge war? It had no real effect on the outcome) and who were the good guys and who were the bad guys was a waste of time though (including this post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Aloha,

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

Cossack_UA
02-12-2004, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
LOL, Ivan, congrats! Your post was one of the best trolls I've ever seen. Certainly brought all the history "experts" out of the woodwork and somehow got hijacked by the treadheads.

Regarding Hawaii (as I sit here looking out the window at it, as I do every day). True, it did not become a state until 1959 but it was taken away (with the help of the USMC) from the Hawaiians in 1893 and became a US territory in 1898. I believe the Japanese attacked US soil. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interesting post. Nothing I hadn't seen before, but a good first-hand viewpoint. The resulting babbling about tanks, Hawaii, Finland (I know it's important to them, but don't they realize what minor sideshow that war was in the middle of such a huge war? It had no real effect on the outcome) and who were the good guys and who were the bad guys was a waste of time though (including this post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Aloha,

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did you read it and event posted! It's your time, you waisted it. Don't blame others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

tttiger
02-12-2004, 01:34 PM
Wasting time is what I do best. Ask my boss http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aloha,

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

crazyivan1970
02-12-2004, 01:58 PM
I`m confused... i thought i was just translating and not really trolling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

clint-ruin
02-12-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:

Regarding Hawaii (as I sit here looking out the window at it, as I do every day). True, it did not become a state until 1959 but it was taken away (with the help of the USMC) from the Hawaiians in 1893 and became a US territory in 1898 (Pearl Harbor became very attractive during the Spanish-American War). I believe the Japanese attacked US soil. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point of the post I made - which I would recommend you read again, as well as the post that it was written in response to - was that Poland, Singapore, Hawaii and the Phillipines could all be considered unrepresented colonial aquisitions used to project the parent states influence.

Would you say that the US invaded Japanese soil in its military campaign to dismantle the great east asia co-prosperity sphere?

So what do you consider a non sovereign country in SE asia or the pacific, with no representation in the parent colony other than the Colonial Office or the Bureau of Insular Affairs, packed full of British or American warships, USAFFE bases, and a local government and military stuffed full of CIC agents?

Maybe just a little bit like the carved up remains of Poland perhaps, but with different acronyms?

Since you are such a vast tub of knowledge - perhaps you could do us a little timeline from the treaty of paris in 1898 to phillipine and hawaiian independence, contrasted with how long it took the poles to get out from under the soviets. Maybe a nice graph in Excel to go with it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Boandlgramer
02-12-2004, 02:03 PM
i did an quick search and found something :

The American armored elements were not at their best in Lorraine either. Much of this can be attributed to the weather, but some of the blame must be given to the army commander for binding his armored divisions into infantry-heavy corps. Patton's reluctance to mass his armor came as a pleasant surprise to the Germans, who believed that their panzer divisions were just as useful in creating breakthroughs as they were in exploiting them. At a lower level, the combat command concept provided great tactical flexibility through decentralized control, but it also tempted Patton's corps commanders to break up the armored division and parcel it out by combat commands, a policy that further diluted Third Army's armored punch. Organizationally, the Armored Division of 1944 proved to be weak in infantry, a shortcoming often made good by detaching battalions from infantry divisions and assigning them to armored combat commands.

In addition, American tank crews repeatedly paid a heavy price for a doctrinal decision made before the war that declared tanks to be offensive weapons not intended for defensive combat against other tanks. As a result of this official policy, the M-4 Sherman tanks in Lorraine were badly outgunned by German panzers that mounted superb antitank pieces. The tank-stopping task was officially assigned to the tank destroyers, which were supposed to be thinly armored, highly mobile, heavily armed antitank specialists. Doctrine called for the majority of tank destroyers to be pooled in special corps and army antitank reserves, which could rush to the scene of an armored attack anywhere along the front. But Third Army didn't need an antitank reserve in Lorraine because German tanks usually appeared a few at a time. Consequently, the tank destroyer concept was discarded after the war, when the U.S. Army decided that the best weapon to stop a tank was another adequately armed tank.

Finally, the Lorraine campaign demonstrated that logistics often drive operations, no matter how forceful and aggressive the commanding general may be. In the August pursuit that brought Third Army to Lorraine, General Patton daringly violated tactical principles and conducted improvised operations with great success. He discovered, however, that the violation of logistical principles is an unforgiving and cumulative matter. Sooner or later, every improvisation and shortcut taken must be repaid. Third Army's logtstical shortcuts included burning up gasoline reserves to keep an advance going and then neglecting ammunition supply to bring up gasoline. The slowdown that affected all of the Allied forces in September and October was the inevitable price to be paid for gambling logistically that the war could be ended in August. Moreover, in spite of the logistical mobility afforded by motorization, remember that the trucks running the Red Ball Express consumed a greater and greater proportion of their cargoes as the advance progressed, forcing Third Army to turn to two time-honored methods of supply--railroad transport and local requisition.

The lessons of the Lorraine campaign were not all negative. The American soldier proved himself capable of carrying the fight to a determined enemy under adverse conditions, a lesson that would be demonstrated even more conclusively in the Battle of the Bulge. Armored troops more than held their own against an enemy possessing superior equipment. Infantry formations endured trench foot and debilitating casualty rates. The artillery's ability to mass its fire at critical points was tactically decisive time after time. Engineers performed miracles in their efforts to keep Third Army moving in spite of demolitions and floods. Support troops overcame logistical nightmares through ingenuity and sheer hard work. When the weather permitted, the Army Air Force blasted out enemy strongpoints in close cooperation with the ground elements, denied the enemy the use of the roads in daylight, and forced him to abandon tactics that had worked against every other opponent.

Boandlgramer
Ein St├╝ck vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

PzKpfw
02-12-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JorBR:

Btw, 76mm/Firefly werenÔ┬┤t the majority of Shermans in France/44, were they? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, their were no 76mm Sherman's employed in Normandy till later, Ie, as of Sept 6 1944 the 12th Army had a total of 1,913 Shermans of which only 250 were armed with an 76mm gun.

Firefly's were present in small numbers from June 6, Ie, 109 Firefly & 6 replacement Firefly
were on hand as of June 23 1944 with 21st Army.

Its interesting that as of May 5 1945 the ratio of Firefly had skyrocketed Ie, out of the 3,150 Sherman employed in 21st Army 1,235 were Firefly, vs 1,915 with 75mm.

Regards, John Waters

PzKpfw
02-12-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
i did an quick search and found something :

The American armored elements were not at their best in Lorraine either. Much of this can be attributed to the weather, but some of the blame must be given to the army commander for binding his armored divisions into infantry-heavy corps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm confused here Ie, the weather favored Manteuffel's forces, which as in, Normandy & the Ardennes did on occasion removed US TAC from the picture for a time. While Patton was suffering logisticaly as priority for supply had been shifted to Market Garden. While on the other hand Mantuffel's 5th Panzer Army
had recieved priority in supply and equiptment refit etc.

Mantuffel's real advantage lay in a)3rd Army's lack of supplies, and b) the terrain defensive advantages of the Moselle valley & Metz's fortifications. Which was squandered in an ill concieved counter offensive that decimated 5th Panzer Army.

Also Mantuffel who had just been pulled from the Eastren Front was in for a shock in that as with most German Generals and troopes

pulled from the Eastren front were not prepared for US tactics Ie, they tended to concentrate their armor as a shock force, to punch thru weakend Soviet Infantry formations, with inadequate, anti tank support & very limited ability to call in Artillery support, due to an inherent lack of radios.

which worked well vs the Soviets but was no good vs US formations, which had ample manpower, anti tank & a very responsive Artillery support system. Which was why 5th Panzers very short counter offensive despite lavish support & supply and fovorable inclimate weather conditions was an failure, not one German objective was accomplished while Patton's agressive attacks, despite his logistic situation pushed thru the Moselle. Which would have dire consequences for the Germans in the Ardennes offensive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Patton's reluctance to mass his armor came as a pleasant surprise to the Germans, who believed that their panzer divisions were just as useful in creating breakthroughs as they were in exploiting them. At a lower level, the combat command concept provided great tactical flexibility through decentralized control, but it also tempted Patton's corps commanders to break up the armored division and parcel it out by combat commands, a policy that further diluted Third Army's armored punch. Organizationally, the Armored Division of 1944 proved to be weak in infantry, a shortcoming often made good by detaching battalions from infantry divisions and assigning them to armored combat commands.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

Which goes right back to the German Eastrent front mentality Ie, Kursk of useing concentrateing armor as a shockforce which was a total failure in the West Ie, not one German offensive in the West succeeded even when they had a numerical advantage or parity in forces US firepower, as well as training, doctrine, and flexability proved superior Ie, we can trace the fighting in Lorraine and the fate of German forces Ie,

In, the Lorraine battles in 1944 we see the destruction of 4 Panzer Brigades useing PzKpfw IVs, Panthers & Pz IV/70. Ie, :

The destruction of Panzer Brigade 106, which occured begining on Sept 8, 1944 vs an hodge podge of US forces 106 was built from the remains of Pz, Gren, Div Feldherrnhalle, which had been destroyed during operation Bagration with AGC. Pz.Brigade 106 was also led by none other then Col. Dr Franz Bake.

106 began its operation with 36 Panther, 11 Pz IV/70, 119 SdKfz. 250/251 HT, & 4 SP AA on September 8 1944, & by the end of the battle had lost no less then 21 Panther & Pz IV/70, 60 SdKfz 250/251, & over 100 support vehichles, 764 Germans were captured includeing the Co's ofthe Panther Regt, & Pz Gren Regt.

As of Sept 9 Pz. Brigade 106 reported a total of 9 Panther,& Pz IV/70 operational out of 47 operational on Sept 8. 17 Panther, & 9 PzIV/70 were later recoverd by German recovey crews. The interesting aspect was Bake with his vast
experience on the Eastren front, lost control of his Brigades actions early on in the battle & never regained it.

The destruction of Panzer Brigade 112 @ Dompaire on Sept 13, 1944 vs the French 2nd Armored Div's GTL Langlade. consisting of, Group Massu, Group Minjonnet, & Group Putz.
1./Pz.Regt 29 (PzKpfw V) & Pz. Regt 2112 (PzKpfw IV) lost 34 Panther & 28 PzKpfw IV, for a combined total of 62 tanks out of their total of 90 PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw V, & Pz IV/70, Persenell losses were , 350 KIA, 1000 WIA. French losses were 5 M4A2 Sherman, 2 M5A1, 2 HTs, 2, jeeps, 44 KIA, & 1 P-47.

Followed by the destruction of both the 111th & 113th Pz. Brigades in 4 days (Sept 19- 22 1944) vs 4th Armored Divs CCA, 111, & 113 lost 83 tanks combined out of their original combined total of 90 PzKpfw V, & had 80 effectives left out the original compliment of 2,500 effectives. 4th Armored CCA losses were 14, M4 Sherman, 7, M5A1, & 113 casualties 25 KIA, 88 WIA. The 4th CCA destroyed the equivelent of 2 Panzer Brigades in this action.

Lorraine cost 5th Panzer Army out of the
616 Tank and AG/SPAT commited:

101 - PzKpfw IV
118 - PzKpfw V
221 - Assault gun/SPAT

Total 440 AFVs

As to your assertion that CC's were weak in infantry that was exactly the US Arm's flexability that allowerd it to attach armor and infantry as needed, the Soviets adopted a similar system which proved superior to the German procedure.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

In addition, American tank crews repeatedly paid a heavy price for a doctrinal decision made before the war that declared tanks to be offensive weapons not intended for defensive combat against other tanks. As a result of this official policy, the M-4 Sherman tanks in Lorraine were badly outgunned by German panzers that mounted superb antitank pieces.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course the Allies suffered severe casualties, as they were fighting German armor etc in defensive positions Ie, Normandy, yet when the roles were reversed Ie, the Ardennes where US forces were in defensive positions they chewed up German armor in vast quantaties. Had the Allies had Panthers etc the results would have been the same, tanks fireing from 100ms in ambush postions etc took a heavy toll. Their were very few meeting engagements in the ETO. Allied tank losses climbed in Normandy due to the terrain and German use of it to the best defensive advantage, yet after breakout Allied armor losses fall drasticly, and pick up again during the Ardennes counter offensives, again faceing German armor/AT in defensive positions.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The tank-stopping task was officially assigned to the tank destroyers, which were supposed to be thinly armored, highly mobile, heavily armed antitank specialists. Doctrine called for the majority of tank destroyers to be pooled in special corps and army antitank reserves, which could rush to the scene of an armored attack anywhere along the front. But Third Army didn't need an antitank reserve in Lorraine because German tanks usually appeared a few at a time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I never agreed with the TD doctrine but in the Ardennes it clearly worked it was the TD arm with Artillery etc that bled the Panzer Divs dry around Bagstone etc. I sugest you re examine 5th Pz Army employment of armor during Lorraine as well, as the armor was not thrown in piecemail it was concentrated, and defeated in mass.


Regards, John Waters

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu February 12 2004 at 03:00 PM.]

Boandlgramer
02-12-2004, 04:04 PM
John Waters.
may you are able to read german:


Panzer-Brigade 111

Aufgestellt, aufgrund im Fr├╝hjahr 1944 in Westfalen durch Wehrkreis VI als Alarm-Kampfgruppe. Ab dem 2. September 1944 wurde die Brigade auf dem Truppen├╝bungsplatz Sennelager. Die Brigade sollte am 5. September beginnend der Armeegruppe Blaskowitz (Heeresgruppe G) in den Raum um Epinal zugef├╝hrt werden. Im Bahntransport m├╝ssen viele Umleitungen in Kauf genommen werden, es kann auch nur nachts gefahren werden. Bis zum 10. September 1944 kommt die Brigade nach Lothringen, wo sie sich gemeinsam mit den Panzer-Brigaden 112 und 113 hinter den Riegeln der 15. Panzergrenadier-Division um Epinal versammelte.

S├╝dlich Arracourt trat ab dem 16. September 1944 das LVIII. Panzer-Korps, unter General der Panzertruppe Walter Kr├╝ger, mit einer Panzerkampfgruppe 15. Panzergrenadier-Division, der Panzer-Brigade 111 und Teilen der Panzer-Brigade 113, zum Gegenschlag auf Luneville an, um n├┬Ârdlich der Stadt den bedrohlichen Feindeinbruch beiderseits des Marne-Rhein-Kanal zu bereinigen. Dieser Gegenangriff aus dem Raum westlich Dieuze, s├╝dlich des Kanals, kam in den ersten Stunden gut voran und drang am 18. September 1944 bis nach Luneville-Nordost durch. S├╝dlich der Stadt blieb jedoch der Angriff des XXXXVII. Panzer-Korps n├┬Ârdlich des Modon-Waldes liegen Am 21. September 1944 schlugen Panther und SPW der Panzer-Pionier-Kompanie 2111 einen bedrohlichen Feindvorsto├č im Raum um Bures zur├╝ck. Ein Gegenangriff der Panzer-Brigade 111 am Morgen des 22. September 1944, n├┬Ârdlich des Kanals aus dem Raum s├╝d├┬Âstlich Chateau-Salins auf Juvelize - Arracourt, kam zun├┬Ąchst gut voran. Als jedoch der leichte Morgennebel aufklarte, wurde die Brigade durch starke Feindartillerie und ├╝berschweren amerikanischen Panzerabwehrwaffen, aufgefangen, zerschlagen und vor allem durch pausenlose Jagdbomberangriffe fast aufgerieben. Die Reste der Brigade deckten ├┬Âstlich Chateau - Salins die Versammlung der ab dem 24. September 1944 nachts herankommenden 11. Panzer-Division, mit welcher die Brigade bis Ende September in den K├┬Ąmpfen um Arracourt focht.

Die Panzer-Brigade 111 wurde mit Wirkung vom 1. Oktober 1944 aufgel├┬Âst.


this report means, 111.th panzerbrigade losses were mainly from air-attacks.

Boandlgramer
Ein St├╝ck vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

Boandlgramer
02-12-2004, 04:18 PM
about the 106th brigade

just some datas translate in english:
7.th october, the unit destroyed 26 tanks and 8 light tanks.
28.th+ 30.th october , the unit destroyed 35 american tanks, Gefreiter Fink ( 8. kompanie Panzergrenadier- Battailion 2106 destroyed 7 of them with his panzerfaust.

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/PanzerBrig/PzBrig106.htm

the 112th
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/PanzerBrig/PzBrig112.htm

Boandlgramer
Ein St├╝ck vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Thu February 12 2004 at 03:29 PM.]

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Thu February 12 2004 at 03:30 PM.]

BfHeFwMe
02-12-2004, 06:04 PM
Finland was more than just a footnote, it was the final straw that convinced Hitler he could quickly smash the Soviets. Try reading the thread title again, and than the soldiers narrative, than attempt to negate it as a nonfactor. LoL

PzKpfw
02-12-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
John Waters.
may you are able to read german:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not realy some but not much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
this report means, 111.th panzerbrigade losses were mainly from air-attacks.

Boandlgramer
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

47th Pz Korps initial objective which Pz.Brig 111 was part of, was Luneville which had changed hands on the 15th and 16th between the Germans and CCR. On the 18th Luttwitz believed Luneville was under German control. the Panther's from Pz.Brigade proceeded as such, and ran, right into, an outpost outside of Luneville of the 42nd Cav. Sqn. The Panther's destroyed 3 M8 HMcs, while the other 3 M8HMC's withdrew the Panthers continued to advance but were then stopped by Calvalry troops fighting dismounted.

The 42nd fought a successful delaying action despite being outnumbered and withdrew thru Luneville, while s TF from CCA 4th Arm Div with elements of CCB 6th Arm Div rushed to the scene. Which led to the US 603rd TD Bn engageing Panthers at PB range with supt of 2Bns of the 183rd Feild Art Group, which forced the Germans to withdraw to the Southren section of Luneville. Manteuffel then ordered Pz. Brig. 111 to pull back, and head for Parroy to join Krueuger's 58th Pz.Korps. As the US XV Corps was advanceing into Luttwitz's left flank. Manteuffel ordered Luttwitz to go on the defensive useing 21st Pz.Div, 15th Pz.Gren.Div, and Pz.Brig 112.

Pz.Brig 111, and Pz.Brig 113 were then on the 18/19th to launch offensive operations in the Area of Arracourt, (Pz.Brig 111), and Lezey (Pz.Brig 113), which had things gone as planned gave the Germans an 4:1 advantage in armor vs CCA forces.


Unfourtently the 111th Pz.Brig got lost, while moveing at night, suposedly because of a French farmer who gave them false instructions etc. Which left the 113th Pz.Brigade on its own on the 19th. the 111th finaly arrived in the Bures/ Parroy reservoir @ 1430, to late to help the 113th. Which left the 113th & 111'th Pz. Brigades stagnant until Sept 22.


On the 22nd at a late start, under heavy fog the 111th began operations vs CCA 4th Arm. Div northren flank which was covered by the 25th Cav. Sqn. In the fog the Germans caught Co F M5A1 Stuarts by suprise knocking out 7 M5A1's. The 111th pushed thru the screen and was then stopped by a few M18's from Co. C 704th TD Bn, that knocked out 3 PzKpfw V's.

That late start came back to haunt the 111th as the fog unexpectedly lifted and P-47s from the XIX TAC entered the fray. At this time with the Cavalry screen effectively holding the 111th, the 37th Tank Bn took up positions near Trois Crois in the hills that overlooked the valley east of Juvelize. This was the 111th assembly area.

The 37th engaged the German tanks from 200 - 2000yrds, and called in Arty fire on the assembly areas. During the fireing the 111ths Co, Col. Heinrich von Bronsart-Schellendorf was killed by MG fire (some say he delibertly walked into the fire).


Manteuffel requested Luftwaffe assistance and was ignored, so he commited the available tanks from the 113th to no avail. The 111th was forced to retreat under fire from US Tanks, TD's Artillery fire & XIX TAC attack. By the end of the 22nd the 111th had 7 tanks operational, out of the starting 90, and 80 men out of 2,500 that started operations.

If your interested in Lorraine I sugest picking up:

Zaloga Steven J. Lorraine 1944


As a start.


Regards, John Waters

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu February 12 2004 at 05:30 PM.]

Boandlgramer
02-12-2004, 10:34 PM
and you can read Janusz Piekalkiewicz book or the excellent book of Holger Schill "Panzerk├┬Ąmpfe im Westen.



a real good start for you.

Boandlgramer
Ein St├╝ck vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

PzKpfw
02-12-2004, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
and you can read Janusz Piekalkiewicz book or the excellent book of Holger Schill "Panzerk├┬Ąmpfe im Westen.



a real good start for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx, you can also try:

Cole H.M. The Lorraine Campaign

As i said Zaloga's Lorraine 1944 is a good start, the 3D maps with German & US movement etc are great, I could scan the maps if your interested.

which Piekalkiewicz book are you be refering to Tank war?

Regards, John Waters

Slush69
02-13-2004, 02:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
[QUOTE]
Interesting, haven't read that particular Glantz book.

Everything I've read otherwise has made reference to Zukov repeatedly having to issue directives along the lines of:

Comrades, if you are going to keep insisting on making frontal assaults, please stop copying them verbatim from the diagrams in your combat manual.

Road to Stalingrad also spends about the first 1/4 of the book going over the political infighting around the use of armour at various conferences, at least from the version of events in that book, it appears that whatever "advances" were decided upon, there was noone left to actually implement them.

I would tend to take the position that the 'official version' of military doctrine is the one the lowest units of command are aware they're supposed to use.

When do you think soviets stopped issuing armour piecemeal, less than 4 tanks at a time, as infantry support rather than armoured units?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO doctrine is the official and written military procedures on how to fight. I don't claim to know all about Soviet doctrine, but I do know, that they had an advanced manouver doctrine.

It's an entirely different thing that they in many instances had trouble carrying it out. Especially early on. But one thing is performance, another thing is doctrine. If we don't distinguish between that, we're led to absurd conclusions like: The German doctrine at Stalingrad was to be encircled etc. etc. ad absurdum.

Largescale Soviet deployment of armour took place from the very beginning of Barbarossa. But it was ill-coordinated and not especially skillfull. That's why they abondoned corps-size armoured units a few months later and concentrated on getting armour to work on a brigade-level. Once they had working brigades they assembled them to the corps that flanked and encircled the 6th German army, came close to encircled the entire Heeresgruppe S├╝d, and became the backbones of the Tank armies that smashed Heeresgruppe Mitte and took Berlin.

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

(FIN)-Cowboy
02-13-2004, 02:30 AM
Well Ivan, if you want a good unbiased look into Winter War, may I suggest "A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-40" by William R. Trotter. It's the best book I have read on the subject.

I don't think the reporting of the Winter War is that biased, well not anymore anyway http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I saw an excellent Russian tv document about the conflict some time ago (can't remember the document's name, only that it was in three parts) where they had had access to real wartime Russian documents, instead of the propaganda-saturated ones people had seen until then. They critisized many of the decisions made by field commanders like trying to attack machinegun nests by advancing infantry over frozen swampland and giving skis to their troops but then neglecting to train the troops to use them, many of them same points as Trotter raises in his book.

In Finland the actual fighting success of the Finns in the Winter War has been IMHO glorified a bit too much perhaps, because much of our success was made possible by errors of the enemy (one may of course also then argue what had happened if Finns had built a better equipped army themselves instead of the bring-your-own-stuff force we managed scrape together...) and by the time we signed the peace treaty there was pretty much nothing left of the Finnish army. One big offensive push by the Soviets would have probably finished us off, only by that time US and UK had started to support Finland (too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and Stalin was not keen to make enemies of them because of Finland. And that in my mind is where the real success of Winter War lies: holding the Soviets long enough at bay for them to become unpopular with their own allies.

Also often in Finland the result of the Winter War is mainly credited to the "sisu", the fighting spirit and stubborness of the Finnish soldier while defending his own country. While this was an important factor, only the biggest homeboy would argue that there were at least two bigger reasons the Finns stopped the Soviets:

1) the weather
- it was one of the coldest winters in history, with mercury dropping under -40 C in many places; we were equipped and accustomed for that, the Soviets were not

2) the terrain
- the Eastern Finland was (and some say still is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) basically a thick forest swampland, with narrow and separated roads and many natural defenses formed by small streams and rocky hills; fighting in this kind of terrain is quite similar to fighting in a ruined city where attacker theoretically needs about 10-to-1 advantage in firepower for guaranteed success
- also the familiarity with said terrain played a big part: in Finnish army the regiments are often formed of people from same area and the idea is that if possible, the regiments are basically defending their home area because then they are more familiar with the terrain and more motivated; contrast this with the fact that many of the Soviets fighting versus Finns were from Ukraine's open steppes

In conflict: a well fought conflict on Finns' part considering the odds and while the Finns were probably superior on fighting spirit and leadership, there were other reasons for the outcome than Finns being better individual soldiers

--
Tylymiez - the official choice of n00b-hunters since 2002!

AndyHigh
02-13-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
The resulting babbling about tanks, Hawaii, Finland (I know it's important to them, but don't they realize what minor sideshow that war was in the middle of such a huge war? It had no real effect on the outcome) and who were the good guys and who were the bad guys was a waste of time though (including this post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you think it's acceptable to eat small countries and if it fails just say it doesn't matter because it didn't have effect on the outcome? USSR was one the countries that
started WWII, it wasn't a blameless sufferer
soviet history writing made it to be, including the quote posted. Of course defense lines were dismounted in 1939 because Red Army advanced to the west. And that's also what Hitler wanted they would do.

The failure of Red Army to conquer Finland made Hitler to hurry invasion to USSR because
he tought that they were crap which was propably at least partially true at that time and _conditions_. After Winter War experience Soviet side started renovations adapting later some tactics Finns had used including the snow camouflage suit. The use of SMGs (although there were only 4000 of them at that time) by Finns made them realize how important automatized weapons were for individual soldiers.

What Hitler didn't learn while watching Winter War was that you can't go to frozen forest to play war without means to make get your feet and hands warm and to dry your clothes after a while.

AndyHigh
02-13-2004, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tylymiez:
1) the weather
- it was one of the coldest winters in history, with mercury dropping under -40 C in many places; we were equipped and accustomed for that, the Soviets were not
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to add that cold weather wasn't only a good thing for Finns. Many of the Finnish wounded in encirclement operations were amputations caused by cold. Russians had warm clothes too. The motorized divisions just couldn't be used in those conditions very well.

Also, thick ice was favouring attacker because they could advance through lakes and the sea. Red Army came over Bay of Viipuri and bound additional Finnish forces to fierce fighting to stop them. Btw. in that battle Finnish Fokker D.XXI and Morane Saulnier fighters were strafing mission after mission advancing russians on the ice.

Cossack_UA
02-13-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
The resulting babbling about tanks, Hawaii, Finland (I know it's important to them, but don't they realize what minor sideshow that war was in the middle of such a huge war? It had no real effect on the outcome) and who were the good guys and who were the bad guys was a waste of time though (including this post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you think it's acceptable to eat small countries and if it fails just say it doesn't matter because it didn't have effect on the outcome? USSR was one the countries that
started WWII, it wasn't a blameless sufferer
soviet history writing made it to be, including the quote posted. Of course defense lines were dismounted in 1939 because Red Army advanced to the west. And that's also what Hitler wanted they would do.

The failure of Red Army to conquer Finland made Hitler to hurry invasion to USSR because
he tought that they were crap which was propably at least partially true at that time and _conditions_. After Winter War experience Soviet side started renovations adapting later some tactics Finns had used including the snow camouflage suit. The use of SMGs (although there were only 4000 of them at that time) by Finns made them realize how important automatized weapons were for individual soldiers.

What Hitler didn't learn while watching Winter War was that you can't go to frozen forest to play war without means to make get your feet and hands warm and to dry your clothes after a while.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet advance into Poland actually retunited Western Ukraine with the rest of Ukraine, the Ukrainian regions that got occupied by Poland and Romania after WWI including the pride of Ukrainian culture -- City of Lviv (Lvov in rus.). Polish border went all the way to Zhitomir deep in the Ukrainina territory. It was the fist time in more than 500 years Ukraine was in one piece again.

Just a piece of information. I don't say that Soviets were doing the right thing. Noone was doing the right thing in the period befor WWII.

maxim26
02-13-2004, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyHigh:
So you think it's acceptable to eat small countries and if it fails just say it doesn't matter because it didn't have effect on the outcome? USSR was one the countries that
started WWII, it wasn't a blameless sufferer
soviet history writing made it to be, including the quote posted. Of course defense lines were dismounted in 1939 because Red Army advanced to the west. And that's also what Hitler wanted they would do<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWII started not with invasion of Finland by SSSR but it started with invasion of Poland by Germany. Poland - weak counry with big ambitions which gained some terretory after WWI. Allies granted part of Germany to the Poland (Polich corridor) and big parts of Ukraine and Belorussia, the terretories wich belong to Russia before WWI.

The main reasone WWI started is that Poland didnt want to loose these terretories and British supported them offering "help" they couldn't provide. Winter War was no way a start of WW2. I don't remember any debates among hystorians regarding this and I dont think you do. It was you own conclusion, wasn't it?

And one more thing wich pisses me off. Everybody blame Germany and USSR fortrying to devide wolrd. But, please, tell me this, which country on that period had biggest colonies? Yes, it's British. And they treated people in concored lands not better than Germans and Soviets did. The same I can tell about France and USA.

MandMs
02-13-2004, 08:42 AM
Which country had the biggest colonies? Well that would be Russia.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How else did it become the USSR but by conquering neighboring states.

Blutarski2004
02-13-2004, 09:01 AM
Really interesting discussion on armoredwarfar ehas popped up here. PzKpfw really lives up to his handle!

Some thoughts and questions -

&gt; The comment that the AP performance of the Soviet 85mm were actually deemd inferior to the US 76mm was a stunner to say the least. And this data come from internal Soviet documents? Do you have any more detail on this?

&gt; One of the points omitted in discussing German armored doctrine and its successes was the participation of LW close air support. Integrated air support of armored operations appears to have been a standard part of German attack doctrine. From what I have read of German Eastern Front operations, it was a huge force multiplier in support of German armored sttacks and was viable in the East at least through 1943 and perhaps somewhat later. I have seen some well reasoned arguments that the disbanding of much of the LW bomber force during 43/44 to relieve fighter pilot shortages did a great deal in shifting the tactical balance on the ground in the East.

&gt; The statistics showing nearly half of British/Commonwealth Shermans as Firefly-equipped by early 1945 is also a stunner. But it must be kept in mind that a number of other tanks were serving at the same time. The Cromwells and Churchills as a rule were not so well armed.

&gt; The discussion of the relative merits of Soviet versus other tanks, and the Soviet appreciation of the featues opf the Sherman is a perfect example of the orientation differences between the "hardware" school and the "system" school. Armor thickness, gun caliber, and engine power are by no means the only desiderata of importance in efficient tank design. The direction of Soviet tank evolution is indicative of this. Two man turrets were found tactically inefficient and replaced IIRC by a three-man turret in the T34/85. Radios were introduced as far as possible.

As I said, interesting stuff. I'd like to hear more.

BLUTARSKI

Cossack_UA
02-13-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Which country had the biggest colonies? Well that would be Russia.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How else did it become the USSR but by conquering neighboring states.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

USSR didn't become USSR by conquering neighboring states. All the conquering was already done by the Russian Impire. Those states were already included in the Russian Impire by the end of 19th century. Russian Impire became USSR as a reslult of bloody and brutal Civil War (British and American troops took a small part in this war to help the Whites). Many states used the war to break out of the Russian Impire but to no success.

AndyHigh
02-13-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxim26:
WWII started not with invasion of Finland by SSSR but it started with invasion of Poland by Germany. Poland - weak counry with big ambitions which gained some terretory after WWI. Allies granted part of Germany to the Poland (Polich corridor) and big parts of Ukraine and Belorussia, the terretories wich belong to Russia before WWI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I didn't write WWII started on 30.11.1939. I made a general reference to execution of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement (which wasn't even acknowledged to exist during USSR era) and that includes Soviet invasion into Finland. USSR invaded Poland from the east right after Germany invaded it from the west, and that's a fact. You may of course argue that it was only self-defence but in my view USSR was quite active in starting a new war in Europe.

I won't go into details Poland vs. USSR relations between WWI & WII as I don't know enough about it, but I believe Polish have different opinion than Russians about this issue.

LilHorse
02-13-2004, 12:29 PM
I'm surprised that one of the reasons for Soviet failure early in the war hasn't popped up yet. The "Dual Command" system. The politicizing of the Russian military by the appointment of commissars at all levels of command who would oversee, review and report (basically approve or disapprove) on command decisions by the officers. It was instituted after the initial disasters following the invasion and only served to make matters worse.

Officers were stripped of any initiative to make their own decisions and forced, through fear of being arrested by the NKVD, to adhere strictly to the archaic doctrine of the Soviet military. Officers were too terrified to do anything unless it was strictly "by the book" no matter how ineffectual in battle it was or wasteful of lives of soldiers.

It wasn't until early October of 1942 that this oppressive system was changed and reduced the commissars to an "educational" level in the scheme of command. Whereupon Soviet officers quickly took advantage of the opportunity to put the commissars in their place and take them out of the command structure entirely.

RicknZ
02-13-2004, 12:35 PM
I see this board is still full of loser mofos who think all a tank is is armour and guns. As soon as there in range they auto lock onto the enemy like in there kiddy dune2 games and begin popping away till there HP's drop down at which point they blow up.

Sigh.

Last attempt at reaching through thick skulls, Tanks are NOT robots. Just like in planes the best crew wins but even more extreme in that teamwork is required and all aid rendered to reduce crew member workload gave a HUGE battle feild advantage.

Despite being extremely disadvantaged on paper in the first encounter with T34 and KV1 you may have overlooked (probably while reading historians overblown accounts of how superior the Russian tanks were on paper) that the Germans still kicked the Russians arse destroying one hundred of those "goliath/mega-bot" tanks in the process.


Which AFV series accumulated more kills than any other in WW2?
Tiger?
T34?
Panther?
Sherman?
PZIV?

Nope ladies, the FRIGGEN lowely PZIII. You know that POS, thin armoured weak to moderate firepowered, average mobility and reliabilty 37/50/75mm HUMAN crewed tank and jagdtank.

Cossack_UA
02-13-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
I see this board is still full of loser mofos who think all a tank is is armour and guns. As soon as there in range they auto lock onto the enemy like in there kiddy dune2 games and begin popping away till there HP's drop down at which point they blow up.

Sigh.

Last attempt at reaching through thick skulls, Tanks are NOT robots. Just like in planes the best crew wins but even more extreme in that teamwork is required and all aid rendered to reduce crew member workload gave a HUGE battle feild advantage.

Despite being extremely disadvantaged on paper in the first encounter with T34 and KV1 you may have overlooked (probably while reading historians overblown accounts of how superior the Russian tanks were on paper) that the Germans still kicked the Russians arse destroying one hundred of those "goliath/mega-bot" tanks in the process.


Which AFV series accumulated more kills than any other in WW2?
Tiger?
T34?
Panther?
Sherman?
PZIV?

Nope ladies, the FRIGGEN lowely PZIII. You know that POS, thin armoured weak to moderate firepowered, average mobility and reliabilty 37/50/75mm _HUMAN_ crewed tank and jagdtank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any examples? Maybe Kursk?

JorBR
02-13-2004, 01:37 PM
Thread got hijacked in a good way.

Jonh , you really deserve your nic (Pzkpfw) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . Most people, amateurs or not, have a tendency to consider Western allies armor in second, or even third, place. Have you seen "Band of Brothers" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ? Wich may well be wrong.

However, my opinion is that allied complete air superiority was so important that everything else is blurred. It is dificult to isolate it from other factors (infantry, artillery, armor, supplies). If there is a source that did it, please, let me know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

German offensive in Ardennes was a diferent thing. Allied defense, after the first shock, was really effective but there is no Luftwaffe also (good wheater or not). My point is that in the relatively confined spaces of western Europe, Blitzkrieg style advances are only possible with strong armor spearheads supported by tatical air power to clear the path and to protect supply lines. Like the allies did after Normandy.
Without that aerial backup, offensives would have been slower, as was in the Ardennes for germans and as I think it would be for allies.

Just sharing some thoughts, my knowledge on the subject is rather rusty and outdated http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

JorBR
02-13-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
I see this board is still full of loser mofos who think all a tank is is armour and guns. As soon as there in range they auto lock onto the enemy like in there kiddy dune2 games and begin popping away till there HP's drop down at which point they blow up.

Sigh.

Last attempt at reaching through thick skulls, Tanks are NOT robots. Just like in planes the best crew wins but even more extreme in that teamwork is required and all aid rendered to reduce crew member workload gave a HUGE battle feild advantage.

Despite being extremely disadvantaged on paper in the first encounter with T34 and KV1 you may have overlooked (probably while reading historians overblown accounts of how superior the Russian tanks were on paper) that the Germans still kicked the Russians arse destroying one hundred of those "goliath/mega-bot" tanks in the process.


Which AFV series accumulated more kills than any other in WW2?
Tiger?
T34?
Panther?
Sherman?
PZIV?

Nope ladies, the FRIGGEN lowely PZIII. You know that POS, thin armoured weak to moderate firepowered, average mobility and reliabilty 37/50/75mm _HUMAN_ crewed tank and jagdtank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YouÔ┬┤re right. Why Polish Cavalry, all brave and very skilled men, failed to stops the germanÔ┬┤s Panzer?

Btw, letÔ┬┤s praise germanyÔ┬┤s greatest mistake: to suspend PZIII, the-AFV-series-which-accumulated-more-kills-than-any-other-in-WW2, production.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

maxim26
02-13-2004, 02:05 PM
A few words about superiority of T-34. The memmories of German tank crew member from the book Stalingrad written by Beevor Anthony. I recomend this book to everybody. Well written and not biased.

So this guy described German attack of Red Army positions. Russians used wrong tactics. They dugged their T-34 in the ground and used just as artilery. It was done to not let them retreat according to Stalin's order "Not one stap back". So russians didn't withstend german attack and started their engines. One tank couldnt move and it was left behind. Germans started to shoot at it from very close distance and they their very surprised to see that hatch opened and crew coming out. Their ears were damaged but the tank was unhert!!!

Better armor and sloped shape did their job.

MandMs
02-13-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxim26:
Better armor and sloped shape did their job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German steel was better than Russian steel.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

All tanks have some degree of sloped armour. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif How many shots fired hit perpendicular?

Beevor, take him with a grain of salt.

Cossack_UA
02-13-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxim26:
Better armor and sloped shape did their job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German steel was better than Russian steel.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

All tanks have some degree of sloped armour. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif How many shots fired hit _perpendicular_?

Beevor, take him with a grain of salt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strong, sloped armor and wide tracks are three of the features that distinguished T-34 from other tanks of the era. It's a well known fact. If you lack some education in this area, don't show your incompetence to others.

BerkshireHunt
02-13-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyHigh:
I won't go into details Poland vs. USSR relations between WWI & WII as I don't know enough about it, but I believe Polish have different opinion than Russians about this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Poland was the trigger for WW2 it's useful to look at German and Russian attitudes to the Poles:

The Middle Ages:
In the 10th century the Polians, a West Slav tribe, founded a state on the Vistula plain. Throughout the middle ages their land was encroached upon by the Germans- especially after a local Polish prince invited the Teutonic Knights, a crusading German order, to subdue the heathen Borussians (Prussians). The Germans went on to found many towns in Poland.
However, the Poles expanded their territory far into Russian lands, especially under the leadership of Casimir the Great (1333-70).
The Jagiellon dynasty of Polish kings (1386-1572) created a vast Polish- Lithuanian commonwealth which became one of Europe's most powerful states, stretching from the Black sea to the Baltic. The arts and sciences flourished in the capital, Krakow, which became a Renaissance city.
The Jagiellon line died out and the remaining nobles could not agree on the succession. Foreign kings were invited to rule Poland but this led to it becoming embroiled in foreign wars which exhausted the country. King Sobieski's victory over the Turks at the Siege of Vienna in 1683 was Poland's last major victory as a sovereign state.

Modern History:
In the 18th century Russia, Prussia and Austria grew in strength and coveted Polish territory. After three ruthless partitions of the country Poland disappeared from the map in 1785.
The French under Napoleon created a 'Grand Duchy of Warsaw' in 1812. In 1815 the Congress of Vienna re- established this as a small, partly self- governing kingdom (known as 'Congress Poland')- with the Russian tsar as king- but elsewhere restored the partition. In 1831 Russia absorbed 'Congress Poland', whilst Austria seized Krakow in 1846.
In the 19th century, though the Prussian part of Poland was well developed the economy could not feed the rising population and many Poles emigrated (today 10 million Poles live abroad- 6 million in the USA).

20th Century Politics:
In 1915 the Germans expelled the Russians from Poland and promised the Poles independence. However, the Poles joined the Allies and their pleas for freedom were answered at Versailles in 1919, when an independent Polish republic was created.
The new state's boundaries led to friction. The western frontier with Germany was largely as it had been before the partition of Poland. However, the so- called 'Polish corridor', separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany had been established (to weaken Germany). In the east, Polish forces claimed territory held by Russia- and a treaty in 1920 finally gave Poland an eastern frontier which resembled that which had existed before the country's partition ( ie around 1780).

For the first time in 140 years Poland was re- established as a state.
(However, only 21 years after re- emerging it was obliterated again when Nazi Germany and the USSR conquered and divided it between them).

Poland in the 1920/30s:
Huge economic problems were exacerbated by the Great Depression of 1929-33. A succession of weak governments culminated in a coup led by Marshal Pilsudski in 1926. He governed Poland by decree until his death in 1935. He was succeeded by Marshall Smigly- Rydz, who headed a government dominated by army officers. In 1939, after Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia, the Poles accepted guarantees of help from Britain and France in the event of an attack by Germany.
In September 1939, using the Polish corridor as a pretext, Hitler launched a blitzkrieg attack against Poland. As the Germans devastated Poland from the west, the Red Army swarmed into the east. The Polish government fled to London. The pact under which the invasion occurred gave Germany control over two thirds of the Polish population. Stalin communicated to Hitler that Russia was content with the eastern lands- Hitler could "solve the Polish question" as he saw fit. Hitler set about organising systematic genocide and deportation of Poles as slave labour.
Meanwhile, the Soviet NKVD (secret state police) terrorised the occupants of eastern Poland.
War:
In 1941 Hitler launched 'Barbarossa', his attack against the Soviet Union, and German forces took over the whole of Poland.
When Polish resistance fighters seized half of Warsaw in 1944, the Germans crushed them while the Red Army waited outside the city. Stalin did not want to help Polish nationalists. A communist state was founded in Lublin in 1944 by the Russians.

Six million Poles died in WW2; five million were exterminated by the Germans.

After the war the Allies approved new frontiers which shifted Poland westwards.
The Poles gained German territory as far west as the Oder/ Neisse rivers, the free city of Gdansk (Danzig) and most of East Prussia; but in the east they were forced to cede a lot of territory to the Soviet Union.

---------------------------------
Reading the above allows us to take a broader historical perspective: it seems to me that Russia and Germany had long regarded Poland as 'fair game'; to be cut and divided in a way which suited them best. Both nations had governed and occupied Poland at various times in the past (for long periods). Hitler must have found it hard to understand why his 'partitioning' of Poland should have sparked a war given that the central european powers had been accustomed to dominating Poland for a very long time. It's no wonder that he thought he would get away with it- look at the historical precedents! But it enables us to see why Chamberlain could not sit idly by: Poland had been re- established after WW1 both to answer the calls of Polish nationalists and to weaken Germany. If Hitler was allowed to assert German power by carving up Poland by agreement with Russia it made the result of WW1 effectively null and void. Germany would once again be on course to dominate the whole of Europe militarily, as it had tried to do in 1914.
That Britain was ill- prepared to do anything about it is another story.

clint-ruin
02-13-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
I'm surprised that one of the reasons for Soviet failure early in the war hasn't popped up yet. The "Dual Command" system. The politicizing of the Russian military by the appointment of commissars at all levels of command who would oversee, review and report (basically approve or disapprove) on command decisions by the officers. It was instituted after the initial disasters following the invasion and only served to make matters worse.

Officers were stripped of any initiative to make their own decisions and forced, through fear of being arrested by the NKVD, to adhere strictly to the archaic doctrine of the Soviet military. Officers were too terrified to do anything unless it was strictly "by the book" no matter how ineffectual in battle it was or wasteful of lives of soldiers.

It wasn't until early October of 1942 that this oppressive system was changed and reduced the commissars to an "educational" level in the scheme of command. Whereupon Soviet officers quickly took advantage of the opportunity to put the commissars in their place and take them out of the command structure entirely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, don't forget that to start with the officers weren't even supposed to be called officers. Along with the dual command system, the authority of command personel was reduced over their troops - probably very nice and egalitarian, but not so great for discipline or morale for front line combat troops. Effectiveness of command worked like a double lottery: on the off-chance that a given unit would be lucky enough to have a commander of some experience or tactical skill left after the purges, they also needed to have a political officer who would allow a skilled commander to do their job. Since the primary selection criteria for a political officer were their connections, zeal, and willingness to break heads for the party, it's not really surprising to see that this represented fairly long odds.

From Overy's "Russias War":
[i]The result was the triumph of military illiteracy over military science, of political conformity over military initiative. It has been estimated that 73 per cent of political officers had no military training, yet they were placed even in small military units, down to the level of the platoon and company. The stifling of military independence left commanders demoralized and excessively cautious, since anything judged by the political officers to be an infringement of the Party line carried the risk of Lubyanka, not just for the commander concerned but for his wife and family. Officers were inclined to stick by the rule book. Any talk of "deep operations", or massed tank attack, with its echos of Tukhachevsky, was by association deemed to be counter-revolutionary.
...
Goes on to quote Pravda, Feb 1939:

"Military thought in the capitalist world has gone into a blind alley. The dashing 'theories' about a lightning war, or about small, selective armies of technicians, or about the air war which can replace all other military operations; all these theories arise from the bourgeoisie's deathly fear of the proletarian revolution. In its mechanical way, the imperialist bourgeoisie overrates equipment and underrates man."

Overy continues:

After twenty years of Soviet rule the mentality of civil war, of a people armed in the righteous struggle against its class enemies, still dominated the outlook of the political elite, most of whom had experienced it first hand. Workers and peasants were regarded as soldiers in the war against the counter-revolution, soldiers were workers and peasants in uniform, the armed wing of the proletarian movement. The legacy of the civil war helps explain why Soviet society as a whole, civilian and military, was mobilized to fight against German aggression in 1941, but also explains why that fight when it came was at first so incompetant and costly.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

MandMs
02-13-2004, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:

Strong, sloped armor and wide tracks are three of the features that distinguished T-34 from other tanks of the era. It's a well known fact. If you lack some education in this area, don't show your incompetence to others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My lack ( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) of education is not as bad as your stupidity.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Why don't you learn to read, for it was a general statement than many like you, a know-it-allhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, forget that there is only one condition when there is no slope to armour. Since you missed it originally, all tanks have sloped armour to some degree. Why, because how many shells hit perpendicular? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now, shall we place a big Red star on your forehead? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

German steel was still better than Soviet steel.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

MandMs
02-13-2004, 04:58 PM
Cossack, would you kindly explain how good Soviets tanks and steel was with loss ratios like this:

6.41 - 2.42 &gt; 1:5.0(German:USSR)
3.42 - 5.42 &gt; 1:6.6
6.42 - 10.42 &gt; 1:1.3
11.42 - 3.43 &gt; 1:5.7
9.42 - 11.43 &gt; 1:2.5
12.43 - 6.44 &gt; 1:1.4
7.44 &gt; 1:4.0
8.44 &gt; 1:2.0
9.44 &gt; 1:1.0 &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; LOL, parity for the first time
10.44 - 11.44 &gt; 1:1.3

German(EF):Soviet armoured vehicle strength comparison (tracked)

6.41 - 3671:28800
3.42 - 1503:6690
5.42 - 3981:8190
11.42 - 3133:6940
3.43 - 2374:9200
8.43 - 2556:8200
6.44 - 4740:13600
9.44 - 4186:13400
10.44 - 4917:13900
11.44 - 5202:16000
12.44 - 4785:17000
1.45 - 4881:16200

Now do you want to tell me again how good Soviet steel was? 11.44, the Germans are outnumbered 3:1 but the Soviets could not even reach parity in losses.

all data from Zaloga

PzKpfw
02-13-2004, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

Some thoughts and questions -

&gt; The comment that the AP performance of the Soviet 85mm were actually deemd inferior to the US 76mm was a stunner to say the least. And this data come from internal Soviet documents? Do you have any more detail on this?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data I posted is from difrent Soviet reports from NIIB etc, concerning evaluation of the M4A2 Sherman 75/76mm, as well as live fire tests on captured German AFV. In all cases the 76mm outpenetrates the 85mm. While the 85mm has better HE/Frag performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

&gt; One of the points omitted in discussing German armored doctrine and its successes was the participation of LW close air support. Integrated air support of armored operations appears to have been a standard part of German attack doctrine. From what I have read of German Eastern Front operations, it was a huge force multiplier in support of German armored sttacks and was viable in the East at least through 1943 and perhaps somewhat later. I have seen some well reasoned arguments that the disbanding of much of the LW bomber force during 43/44 to relieve fighter pilot shortages did a great deal in shifting the tactical balance on the ground in the East.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh positively, the lack of LW support in later years was an hinderance to ground operations, but by June 1943 the Germans had effectively lost air superiority in the in the East as well as initiative. That was one reason why te Germans were forced to alter their tank tactics, along with the declineing force of German Inf Divs, Ie, manpower shortages.

German tanks prior to Zitadelle did not try to roll over prepared defences, in depth they probed for weak spots and penetrated and drove into the rear to disrupt C&C, communications, supply etc, well Infantry divs mopped up. Due to circumstances the Germans were forced to concentrate their tanks later for shock value vs Soviet understrength Inf Divs etc who had less inherent AT capability then Westren Divs.

Also airpower Ie, TAC formations in the West were not that effective vs German tanks Ie,

The 2nd TAF 124th wing consisting of Typhoons of 181, 182, & 247 Squadrons from June 6 - July 6 1944 claimed:
Tanks Destroyed - 12
Tanks Damaged - 4
AFV's destroyed - 1 (armored car).

124 Wing expended no less then 3,700 rockets, which equates to 308 rockets fired per tank destroyed.

What TAC did excell as was disrupting routes of march, supply etc the numbers of softskins destroyed in the west were staggering which cripped German logistics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
&gt; The statistics showing nearly half of British/Commonwealth Shermans as Firefly-equipped by early 1945 is also a stunner. But it must be kept in mind that a number of other tanks were serving at the same time. The Cromwells and Churchills as a rule were not so well armed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely the data I provided only concerned 21st AG Shermans.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

&gt; The discussion of the relative merits of Soviet versus other tanks, and the Soviet appreciation of the featues opf the Sherman is a perfect example of the orientation differences between the "hardware" school and the "system" school. Armor thickness, gun caliber, and engine power are by no means the only desiderata of importance in efficient tank design. The direction of Soviet tank evolution is indicative of this. Two man turrets were found tactically inefficient and replaced IIRC by a three-man turret in the T34/85. Radios were introduced as far as possible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely Soviet doctrine just like Westren doctrine was tanks did not engage tanks, and to an extent they stuck to it, as their operations show from 43 on Ie, Inf with Arty, Air, and SU support broke the German MLR, while the Mech Corps etc exploited the breach and drove full tilt into the German rear, much like the Westren Allies did in the West. Initialy the Germans did not use tanks vs tanks either, they used AT guns, that advanced with their forces. Only later due to circumstances did German emphisis change to tank vs tank. Ie, even the Tiger was designed initialy as an 'Breakthru' tank.

Part of the Soviet problem was it took 2 years to make a T-34 with an 3 man turret, and they never had enough radios. What the Soviets did do was increase the firepower support dramaticly for their Rifle Divs. More later if get time or interest.

Regards, John Waters

Cossack_UA
02-14-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:

Strong, sloped armor and wide tracks are three of the features that distinguished T-34 from other tanks of the era. It's a well known fact. If you lack some education in this area, don't show your incompetence to others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My lack ( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) of education is not as bad as your stupidity.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Why don't you learn to read, for it was a general statement than many like you, a know-it-allhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, forget that there is only _one condition_ when there is no slope to armour. Since you missed it originally, _all tanks have sloped armour to some degree_. Why, because how many shells hit _perpendicular_? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now, shall we place a big Red star on your forehead? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

German steel was still better than Soviet steel.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What should we put on your forehead? Svastika?

HansKnappstick
02-14-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
Soviet advance into Poland actually retunited Western Ukraine with the rest of Ukraine, the Ukrainian regions that got occupied by Poland and Romania after WWI including the pride of Ukrainian culture -- City of Lviv (Lvov in rus.). Polish border went all the way to Zhitomir deep in the Ukrainina territory. It was the fist time in more than 500 years Ukraine was in one piece again.

Just a piece of information. I don't say that Soviets were doing the right thing. Noone was doing the right thing in the period befor WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Cossack, please answer just two simple questions.

The terrible occupation of Ukraine and the enlightened treatment of Ukrainians under the soviet rule leave us with the fact, that the _only_ areas where the Ukrainian language is spoken today are to the _west_ of the former Polish-Soviet border. Tell me please why is that so.

The second question is, why do you think that the _city_ of Lemberg (Lwow) had anything Ukrainian in it prior to 1990.

Cossack_UA
02-14-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
Soviet advance into Poland actually retunited Western Ukraine with the rest of Ukraine, the Ukrainian regions that got occupied by Poland and Romania after WWI including the pride of Ukrainian culture -- City of Lviv (Lvov in rus.). Polish border went all the way to Zhitomir deep in the Ukrainina territory. It was the fist time in more than 500 years Ukraine was in one piece again.

Just a piece of information. I don't say that Soviets were doing the right thing. Noone was doing the right thing in the period befor WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Cossack, please answer just two simple questions.

The terrible occupation of Ukraine and the enlightened treatment of Ukrainians under the soviet rule leave us with the fact, that the _only_ areas where the Ukrainian language is spoken today are to the _west_ of the former Polish-Soviet border. Tell me please why is that so.

The second question is, why do you think that the _city_ of Lemberg (Lwow) had anything Ukrainian in it prior to 1990.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prince Danylo of Galicia founded Lviv in 13th century. Galicia is a former principality of Kievan Rus. Galicia was taken by Poland in 14th century. Its nobility adopted Polish language and Roman Catholicism, but vast majority of people remained Ukrainian Orthodox.

I was born in Kherson. I speak Ukrainian in my family. My father is russian and before marriage he didn't speak Ukrainian but he quickly learned it.

Hope it answers both of your questions.

HansKnappstick
02-16-2004, 05:39 AM
No it does not.

Majority of people in Lvov orthodox, lol.

Yes Lvov was founded by a Ruthenian (not Russian!!!) prince, but many things happened in between. Also Kiev (Kijow, Kiiv) joined peacefully the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; better to be Lithuanian than Tartar you know. Then it was passed to the Polish Crown, so what? The Ukrainian people and the nobilty enjoyed the same rights as the Polish ones. That means: nobility - many rights, people - no rights ;o) The law of Polish Commonwealth was blind to the race/religion/ethnicity, the official language was _Latin_. The one guy who divided Ukraine was Khmielnitskiy; this true Ukrainian patriot tried first to give the Ukraine to Turkey (for possible consequences, look to the Balkans) and when it failed, to the Russians. Which of these powers was interested in maintaining a possible Ukrainian autonomy?

Berlin is a city founded by Western Slavs. The same for most places east of the Elbe - Saale line. Does it support the theoretical claim of Poland or Czechia to Brandenburg?

But no, your friend Maxim was considering even the Polish Corridor to be German, despite the historical/ethnological evidence. So these people use 1000-years old reasons for arguing for the Ukrainian Lwow, and use some wicked arguments, forgotten even by the most nationalistic revisionists here in Germany by now for the German Inowroclaw (Hohensalza)?

And you know that the eastern Ukraine, the city of Kijow (Kiev, Kiiv) including, is Russian-speaking. Including the Ukrainian president. Anything else you say is a plain lie. Areas of Western Ukraine are the ones where the Ukrainian tradition survived. Even the election results show it, sorry.

And hey, Cossack, how Ukrainian are you really? I thought all Ukrainian cossacs were dispatched of by Catherine the Great, who (as most Russian tsars) happend to caress the Ukrainian people a little too strong?

Cossack_UA
02-16-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
No it does not.

Majority of people in Lvov orthodox, lol.

Yes Lvov was founded by a Ruthenian (not Russian!!!) prince, but many things happened in between. Also Kiev (Kijow, Kiiv) joined peacefully the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; better to be Lithuanian than Tartar you know. Then it was passed to the Polish Crown, so what? The Ukrainian people and the nobilty enjoyed the same rights as the Polish ones. That means: nobility - many rights, people - no rights ;o) The law of Polish Commonwealth was blind to the race/religion/ethnicity, the official language was _Latin_. The one guy who divided Ukraine was Khmielnitskiy; this true Ukrainian patriot tried first to give the Ukraine to Turkey (for possible consequences, look to the Balkans) and when it failed, to the Russians. Which of these powers was interested in maintaining a possible Ukrainian autonomy?

Berlin is a city founded by Western Slavs. The same for most places east of the Elbe - Saale line. Does it support the theoretical claim of Poland or Czechia to Brandenburg?

But no, your friend Maxim was considering even the Polish Corridor to be German, despite the historical/ethnological evidence. So these people use 1000-years old reasons for arguing for the Ukrainian Lwow, and use some wicked arguments, forgotten even by the most nationalistic revisionists here in Germany by now for the German Inowroclaw (Hohensalza)?

And you know that the eastern Ukraine, the city of Kijow (Kiev, Kiiv) including, is Russian-speaking. Including the Ukrainian president. Anything else you say is a plain lie. Areas of Western Ukraine are the ones where the Ukrainian tradition survived. Even the election results show it, sorry.

And hey, Cossack, how Ukrainian are you really? I thought all Ukrainian cossacs were dispatched of by Catherine the Great, who (as most Russian tsars) happend to caress the Ukrainian people a little too strong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They enjoyed "equal rights" sooooo much that they began an uprising in 17th century. How do you think Cossacks appeared? People fled the Polish rule and settled on the banks of the Dniper in the central-southern Ukraine. The uprising, headed by Bogdan Hmelnytskyi, didn't go well. Hmelnytsky had to form an alliance with powerful Russia to fight Poles off Ukraine. Ukraine, the fist democracy in Europe, which never had a monarch and was governed by elected Hatman, was to remain independent under the terms of treaty with Russia (didn't happen).

As to the history of Lviv. Lviv was founded by Danylo Halytskyi, the prince of Galicia, a fromer principality of Kievan Rus. Of course, he wasn't Russian. Neither Russians nor Ukraininas didn' exist then. But he was a sun of the state that geve birth to mordern Ukraine, Russia, and Belorus.

As to the history of Lviv preceding WWII. With collapse of the Hapsburg Empire at the end of WWI, Lviv was proclaimed capital of independent Republic of West Ukraine. The troops of reemerging Poland seized the city. Soviets took control of the city in 1939.

Just hard facts. Nothing more.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 09:42 AM
Any truth that the word Russian was derived from the name of those people that came out of the area that is now Finland &gt; the Rus?

HansKnappstick
02-16-2004, 10:11 AM
Cossacks. Communities of peasants fleeing (mostly) from the whole Commonwealth of Poland, which was called infernum rusticorum. Nowhere in Europe, besides Russia, was the subjugation of peasants as harsh as in Poland, irrespectively of these peasants' ethinicity. However, peasant revolts were non-existant there, because all who wanted could flee to Ukraine ad join the cossack communities. Kings of Poland recognized the value of those determined and armed people and used them for the defenceof the kingdom. See Peter Konashevich Sahaydachnyy, Dymitr "Bajda" Wisniowiecki (Vishnievietskyy). The expansion of the nobility in Ukraine (which nobility was of Polish as well as Ruthenian descent) and the following extention of the feudal laws to the cossack communities (which meant slavery for those freedom-loving people, effectively) made them rebel various times. The most "effective" was the Khmielnitskyy upraising, which converted half of the country into the ruin and brought to the people of Ukraine what? Freedom? No, Turkish and Russian oppression.

I daresay, Ukrainian peasants who were seized by the Tartars as a part of their "pay" for the help to Khmielnitskyy were missing the "Polish" oppression very much. I say, you will recognize them by their fruits. The fruit of Khmielnitskyy was not the Ukrainian independence, just the opposite so to say; Poland was a commonwealth with an elected king, Russia was a despotism in its purest formm you know. Ukrainians did remember their striving for freedom even under the Russian rule, they made some upraising also. After one of them, 1768 iirc, Catherine the Great marched her troops into every single of cossack sieches and left nobody alive.

After that, the word "cossack" and "Russian" are synonymes.

As for the Kievan Principality giving birth to the modern Russia, I daresay the Golden Horde should receive at least an equal creditr for that...

History of Lvov. It used to be the capital of Galicia, a province of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where numerous nations lived together in peace until the nationalistic bu****it of the modern times made them crazy. With the collapse of the central government in Vienna, the city of Lwow magistrate, made almost exclusively of Poles (which did reflect the ethnic proportions in the _city_), decided to obey the Polish goverment in Warsaw, installed by the Germans and Austrians and in 1916. This made the Ukrainian nationalists reach out to the arms and enter the city with ad-hoc organized military units. The magistrate of Lwow organized it troops equally ad hoc, and a bloody and senseless fight ensued.

To make it clear: the city was besieged by the Ukrainian troops and was fighting them, before the regular Polish troops arrived. This sheds some light, doesn't it?

In 1908, there were more Jews than Ukrainians living in Lvov. Does it make a possible claim by the state of Israel valid? 75% of city's population, 99% of cities educated (2nd grade finished) were Polish. And before you say that these Poles were keeping Ukrainians out of school. The Austrians had the saying, Poles were gaining education _despite_ speaking Polish not thanks to that.

These are hard facts. And you failed to explain the virtual absence of the ethnic Ukrainians to the east of the Soviet-Polish border of 1939, which is also a fact. May I help you by suggesting comparing it to the virtual absence of Delaware Indians in the US state of Delaware, for example.

[edit: minor spelling mistakes. The major ones remain...?]

Cossack_UA
02-16-2004, 10:15 AM
http://www.bohdanyurkiv.cityslide.com/page/page/178119.htm

You need some education.

Heavy_Weather
02-16-2004, 12:23 PM
nice read.....thx

"The wise man is often the man who plays dumb."

HansKnappstick
02-16-2004, 02:35 PM
Dear Cossack,

I am not trying to educate you, since after your courses in historical dialectics it is impossible. But the other members of the forums need a kind of defence from the traditional method of repeating lies that are to become truth.

So this is a short list of Polish propaganda sites about Lwow that should counter your propaganda site. At least I admit that it is propaganda, and I swear it is difficult to find anything but that on this old but sensitive issue.

http://www.kresy.co.uk/lwow_eaglets.html

http://www.kresy.co.uk/
Take a look at population breakdown:
http://www.kresy.co.uk/census_demographic.html

For the cossack wars
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~koby/political/chapter_12/12cossackwar.html
This is a little bit biased _towards_ the Cossacks, as for my taste, but is acceptable nevertheless. Also check the other chapters for info on other periods in the history of the Commonwealth.

Have a nice reading, good night.

Cossack_UA
02-16-2004, 02:47 PM
i know that there are a lot of Poles in Lviv, as well as in other regions of Ukraine. That's the direct result of Polish occupation.

Odessa's population is 80% russians 20% jews. This is a result of Russian occupation. Noone can dare to contest that Odessa is Ukrainian.

As noone can touch our Lviv.

Cossack_UA
02-16-2004, 03:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
Dear Cossack,

I am not trying to educate you, since after your courses in historical dialectics it is impossible. But the other members of the forums need a kind of defence from the traditional method of repeating lies that are to become truth.

So this is a short list of Polish propaganda sites about Lwow that should counter your propaganda site. At least I admit that it is propaganda, and I swear it is difficult to find anything but that on this old but sensitive issue."

Ukrainian prapoganda http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Watch out! Here comes the propaganda from the country that gave up its nukes the fist thing it became independent. LOOOOOL.

Poles are like Russians but much much weaker. That's was theri problem for ages.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
i know that there are a lot of Poles in Lviv, as well as in other regions of Ukraine. That's the direct result of Polish occupation.

Odessa's population is 80% russians 20% jews. This is a result of Russian occupation. No one can dare to contest that Odessa is Ukrainian.

As no one can touch our Lviv.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you mention Jews? That is a religion, not their ethnic heritage. Sound like a bigot, to me, you do.

Cossack_UA
02-16-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
i know that there are a lot of Poles in Lviv, as well as in other regions of Ukraine. That's the direct result of Polish occupation.

Odessa's population is 80% russians 20% jews. This is a result of Russian occupation. No one can dare to contest that Odessa is Ukrainian.

As no one can touch our Lviv.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you mention Jews? That is a religion, not their ethnic heritage. Sound like a bigot, to me, you do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jews is not a religion, but an ethnic group. Jews lived in Ukraine for ages. Many of Ukrainian Jews nowdays dont practice Hebrew. If you know a polictically correct way to address Jews pleas teach me, and i will use your term. And for the record, my dearest friend is a jew immigrated to Israel. He has a russian last name and didn't even new he was a jew neither i cared what ethnic background he had.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:

Jews is not a religion, but an ethnic group. Jews lived in Ukraine for ages. Many of Ukrainian Jews nowdays dont practice Hebrew. If you know a polictically correct way to address Jews pleas teach me, and i will use your term. And for the record, my dearest friend is a jew immigrated to Israel. He has a russian last name and didn't even new he was a jew neither i cared what ethnic background he had.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure bigot. A Jew is one whose religion is Judism. A proper name &gt; Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, French, American, Australian, German, Polish, New Zealander, Canadian, Swiss, Belgium, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish,...............

Hebrew is a language spoken by the group of people of the same name whose origin is in the area that is now the country of Isreal.

maxim26
02-16-2004, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:

Jews is not a religion, but an ethnic group. Jews lived in Ukraine for ages. Many of Ukrainian Jews nowdays dont practice Hebrew. If you know a polictically correct way to address Jews pleas teach me, and i will use your term. And for the record, my dearest friend is a jew immigrated to Israel. He has a russian last name and didn't even new he was a jew neither i cared what ethnic background he had.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure bigot. A Jew is one whose religion is Judism. A proper name &gt; Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, French, American, Australian, German, Polish, New Zealander, Canadian, Swiss, Belgium, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish,...............

Hebrew is a language spoken by the group of people of the same name whose origin is in the area that is now the country of Isreal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MandMS, if you wanna call names, we gonna call names. You call me bigot ones again, ill do my best to call you something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now every one calls jews jews, that's it. Unleass they come up with a "politically correct" name for jews, im gonna be using the term jew.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxim26:

MandMS, if you wanna call names, we gonna call names. You call me bigot ones again, ill do my best to call you something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now every one calls jews jews, that's it. Unleass they come up with a "politically correct" name for jews, im gonna be using the term jew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try one of these http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A proper name &gt; Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, French, American, Australian, German, Polish, New Zealander, Canadian, Swiss, Belgium, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish,...............

Now, are 'rider of horses' or maxim? looks like you are using 2 nicks.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cossack_UA
02-16-2004, 06:20 PM
no im not using two nicks, i just used my frien's comp and din't signed out.

BTW MR. Hans first referred to jews as jews by givin link to cencus results which lists Jews as Jews. So don't blame me.

Please forgive me for offending you and calling your nation Jews. From now on i will call it Israily-Ukrainians, Israily-Americans, and so on.

But i really don't understand the concern. If i were a jew, i would be proud of such heritage.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 06:38 PM
No, you really don't understand, do you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Now if you will say Greek Orthidox Ukrainian, Greek Orthidox Russian, or Roman Catholic Poles, Roman Catholic Slovaks, or Lutherin Germans, ...........

Or Polish Ukrainian, Ukrainian Russian, .........

To call someone this, Israily-Ukrainians, means they have dual citizenship. Is that possible?

BBB_Hyperion
02-16-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Any truth that the word Russian was derived from the name of those people that came out of the area that is now Finland &gt; the _Rus_?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the word comes out of the nordic languages and the rus or ros were the man that row on the longships. Later this name was used for people living in the Region Novgorod from where this group splits up to Bulgar and Kiev. Establishing along the rivers to secure trade routes to Constantinople or far East. So yes you are right .)

Regards,
Hyperion

HansKnappstick
02-17-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
i know that there are a lot of Poles in Lviv, as well as in other regions of Ukraine. That's the direct result of Polish occupation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now your shallow spirit becomes obvious. You use ethnic proportions when it suits you and disregard them when they are inappropriate for your theories.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Odessa's population is 80% russians 20% jews. This is a result of Russian occupation. Noone can dare to contest that Odessa is Ukrainian.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Odessa was fonded by Russians on the area captured from he Turks but which was virtually depopulated; I fail to see any occupation here nor historical rights of Ukraine to that City. Equally you can argue that Crimea is Ukrainian; yes it is because the internationally acknowledged borders were put this way. Point. No way in discussing cultural or historical evidence here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As noone can touch our Lviv.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody wants to touch anything. I am happy with the place I am living in, as well as former Lwow inhabitants have made another nice city their home for 60 years now; that's enough for most emotions to settle. It is you who reinvent the history and tear off 500 years of mostly peaceful coexistence of two great nations.

HansKnappstick
02-17-2004, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
No, you really don't understand, do you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it is you who do not understand the Eastern European realities, where ethnicity and religion are hopelessly mixed up.

For example, the main distinction between Poles and Ruthenians has been, for many years, the Polish Catholicism (in fact, Poles were so catholic only on the eastern extents of the realm, in the central and western provinces the Protestants were quite present) and the Ruthenian Orthodoxy. The Union of Brest-Litovsk introduced only more confusion, since those Ukrainians who converted to it were seen as traitors by the rest in many cases while still not accepted as good Poles by the Catholics. This however had importance in extreme circumstances only, for instance, when Russia (claiming her right to rule all the Orthodox in the world) found it suitable to mix in.

The Jews. I am not talking about todays distinctions. They were settling all over the Polish commonwealth and their existence remained unhindered mostly, but they were keeping apart. Till the beginning of 20c., and in many areas till the WW2 actually they built closed and separate communities. I think this is a reason enough to single them out as a group in any poll or cenzus.

HansKnappstick
02-17-2004, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
Watch out! Here comes the propaganda from the country that gave up its nukes the fist thing it became independent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What it has to do? Your government gave nukes away, that's good. Those sites are run by private persons who cherish some nationalistic sentiments and try to justify the possession of the Lwow area by some misenterpreted argumentation. As if 60 years old international border was not an argument enough!

Would you eat your nukes? Or build a modern industry using them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Poles are like Russians but much much weaker. That's was their problem for ages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes beeing weak is a problem for any nation bordering Russia (bordering in a broad sense). Ask the Estonians. And it was also a problem for the Ukrainians.

You still didn't comment on the astonishing coincidence of spreading of the Ukrainian language (and identity) with the pre-war eastern Polish border.

MandMs
02-17-2004, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:

The Jews. I am not talking about todays distinctions. They were settling all over the Polish commonwealth and their existence remained unhindered mostly, but they were keeping apart. Till the beginning of 20c., and in many areas till the WW2 actually they built closed and separate communities. I think this is a reason enough to single them out as a group in any poll or cenzus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what did you expect from the people of the Jewish religion in Poland to do? The Poles treated the Jews worse than the Germans did before WW2. There was a VERY strong anti-Semitic bias in Poland.

HansKnappstick
02-17-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Well what did you expect from the people of the Jewish religion in Poland to do? The Poles treated the Jews worse than the Germans did before WW2. There was a VERY strong anti-Semitic bias in Poland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?????? Where did you take this from?

Jews were settling in separate villages only because they wanted to, in any place of the world, as many minorities do. Those who wanted to change their culture were allowed to, a long list of Polish noblemen and townsfolk of Jewish origin proves that.

Poland was the only country in medieval Europe where no laws were allowed discrimining Jews (or any other religion or ethnicity).

In the 20c. it was not the Poles who invented the yellow star. Many Poles died trying to save a Jew during a war. Poland was the only country where helping Jews was punished with death by the Nazi occupants; which hints that it was the only country wher it was a problem for them. How many Dutch Jews survived the war? Or Hungarian ones? Will you please count the trees in the Yad Vashem institute. I did.

Tell me, your whole knowledge of Poland and Jews comes from that "Shoah" movie?

MandMs
02-17-2004, 06:21 AM
One would not expect you to say the Jews were not treated 'nicely' leading up to WW2 in Poland.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To the other question, no.

HansKnappstick
02-17-2004, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
One would not expect you to say the Jews were not treated 'nicely' leading up to WW2 in Poland.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To the other question, no.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? I am not a Polish citizen, fyi. All I want is to achieve some kind of historical accuracy, and it says that anti-Jew laws were put in force, sadly, in Germany and nowhere else.

One expect you to come with some evidence. The words you say would put you into jail in some countries for promoting an alternate version of history (not in Poland, hehe).