Was the Soviet Union preparing to attack Germany?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Locked
Andy Syl
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:26

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#886

Post by Andy Syl » 05 Feb 2013, 22:49

paspartoo wrote: guess what it was the same for the rest of the war.
No, it wasn't. Here are the technical losses for 3 soviet tank armies during the Soviet counter-offensives

1 Tank Army (3-31 august 1943): 706 losses from combat damage, 334 from technical disrepair
3 Guards Tank Army (19-30 July 1943): 606 losses from combat damage, 35 from technical disrepair
4 Tank Army (15 July - 31 August 1943): 1,189 losses from combat damage, 80 from technical disrepair

Source: Glantz, Battle of Kursk

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#887

Post by steverodgers801 » 05 Feb 2013, 23:22

is it possible that the forward positions of the troops were Stalins attempt to show Hitler that the Soviets were prepared for war. The rapid fall of France upset Stalins plans greatly. He was expecting a long drawn out fight between France and Germany and when Germany was weakened the Soviets would have easy pickings.


steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#888

Post by steverodgers801 » 05 Feb 2013, 23:24

As far as repair, since the Soviets wereretreating, tanks could not easily get to their repair stations. there was also a lack of maintainance and when tanks broke down they were just abandonded.

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#889

Post by Appleknocker27 » 06 Feb 2013, 00:05

If that is the best you can do, don't bother. If you want to bullshit your way out of a corner, at least do it so that it isn't obvious from a mile away.
That's the same old litany of pontifications; do they teach in US military schools that the soviet tank park was "large and rotten" in order to make young officers bold?
:lol: Good luck with your research. So far you've demonstrated a very one way perspective, denial of facts, rejection of dissenting points of view and general belligerence. We had many long discussions about exactly your perspective on this about 8-10 years ago, most people digested the facts and moved on. Not very refreshingly nostalgic, but amusing that there are still a few of the Suvorov school still beating the drum. That is why my replies are a bit half hearted, not really going to get into any long discussions with a closed mind pushing a dead topic.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#890

Post by steverodgers801 » 06 Feb 2013, 00:14

andy the US army was suprised by the Germans in the Ardennes and was able to quickly react. Simply saying the Germans had suprise does not account for the poor performance by the Soviets for a year. It seems you are trying to argue the SOviets were a fully equipped and trained army in 1941 that simply was defeated by suprise it not backed up by your numbers.

Andy Syl
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:26

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#891

Post by Andy Syl » 06 Feb 2013, 00:26

Appleknocker27 wrote: :lol: Good luck with your research. So far you've demonstrated a very one way perspective, denial of facts, rejection of dissenting points of view and general belligerence. We had many long discussions about exactly your perspective on this about 8-10 years ago, most people digested the facts and moved on. Not very refreshingly nostalgic, but amusing that there are still a few of the Suvorov school still beating the drum. That is why my replies are a bit half hearted, not really going to get into any long discussions with a closed mind pushing a dead topic.
Mr, spare me the patronizing. I asked you several specific questions. You choose to reply to just one of them in a manner a little more elaborate, but still with very general statements and without providing any specific data. I was hoping that, as you boasted in a previous thread you linked that you were a logistics officer, that you would be able to provide a more competent perspective than the usual layman. I apologize for being mistaken in this belief.
rejection of dissenting points of view
As I mentioned once already, I am looking for information, not "points of view", dissenting or not. What good would the latter do?
For instance, the only thing you had to do in order to prove your argument about the radio network was to provide the data of how many tactical radio sets were in the Red Army, overall and per division.
You did not do that, so cut the crap.

Code: Select all

general belligerence
A spade is a spade.
That is why my replies are a bit half hearted, not really going to get into any long discussions with a closed mind pushing a dead topic
This smells of trolling. I made very clear what I am looking for and it's not "half-hearted replies". If you don't want (or cannot) to provide something more insightful, you should have said so. For "half-hearted replies" like this, I don't need to waste time in a specialized forum, I need only to get out in the street.

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#892

Post by Appleknocker27 » 06 Feb 2013, 01:17

For instance, the only thing you had to do in order to prove your argument about the radio network was to provide the data of how many tactical radio sets were in the Red Army, overall and per division.
Right....per MTOE? or by what percent of fill each respective division/armored corps actually had on hand, in working condition with competent operators at the time of combat?
"The new mechanized corps also lacked 39 percent of their vehicles, 44 percent of their tractors (for towing artillery) and 17 percent of their motorcycles (for recon). Overall Corps manning ranged from 22 to 40 percent fill in enlisted personnel and from 16 to 50 percent fill in junior officers. Shortages of experienced senir commanders and staff officers were even more pronounced. Corps in the western border districts averaged 75 percent personnel fill and 53 percent of equipment fill on 22 June. Half of the mechanized corps in the western districts had only 50 percent of their required tanks, and the modern tanks were distributed in uneven fashion."
"Many corps also had vacant staff sections and missing support elements, logistical organs were weak, ammunition was in short supply, and few officers had any experience in how to sustain forces logistically in mechanized warfare."
"Compounding these deficiencies, since corps were formed on the basis of existing cavalry corps and divisions, many of its new officers and men had no familiarity with the basics of armored warfare. Hastily organized remedial courses failed to solve this problem. Moreover, since the new model KV and T34 were secret, training in their use was limited, and by 22 June only 20 percent of corps personnel had any experience operating them."

Glantz -Stumbling Colossus- Pg 118

"COL E.G. Pushkin, commander of the 4th mechanized Corps 32nd Tank Division reported on the 14th of July that his division had been created in April and May from the 30 Light Tank Brigade, and when the war began it had 50 percent of it's personnel strength, 77-78 percent of its modern tanks, 110 percent of its older tank models and 42 percent of its armored cars. However, the divisions tanks drivers were untrained, and it had only 22 percent of its required transport, 13 percent of its repair facilities, 2 percent of its required reserve supplies, 30 percent of its radios and 50 percent of its engineer support. Between 22 June and 31 July the division lost 307 of its original 361 tanks. "

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point and will get a copy of Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus" as a starter. If your issues are with Glantz, then take them up with him. All of the above is cited from original Soviet source material and there is a mountain of it in all of Glantz' books.

Andy Syl
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:26

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#893

Post by Andy Syl » 06 Feb 2013, 02:49

Appleknocker27 wrote:
Right....per MTOE? or by what percent of fill each respective division/armored corps actually had on hand, in working condition with competent operators at the time of combat?
Not "percents". Actual figures.

From the very first moment, a conspicuous feature which catches the eye is that Glantz does not provide actual figures. Except, at the end, the number of tanks lost by the 32 Tank Division. As for the rest, the usual "percents".

For your knowledge, I had the chance to look into "Stumbling Colossus" while I was on a research leave at Konstanz University in Germany. There, I also read many other books on WW2. But there was one thing by the same David Glantz, in "When Titans Clashed" which caught my eye and determined me to look closer at this percents (and, in general, this whole business of the soviet unpreparedness).
There, Glantz makes several considerations about the Wehrmacht and mentions that, on average, a German division possessed on average 125 operational tanks out of a nominal strength of around 200. It that was about the Red Army divisions, the howling would be deafening: "The Soviet tank divisions possessed only 35% of their nominal strength (370)! How is it possible to fight in such nightmarish conditions!?"
A German Panzer division was far from having all their tanks in working condition. But the Wehrmacht apparently was always "ready for war". Hundred percent.

I am not aware of the actual figures for all the "percents" Glantz throws around. But with some I am more familiar.
So I'll shed some light on the issue of the tractors for towing artillery.

The Red Army MTOE for 1941 was the Mobilization Plan for 1941, abbreviated MP-41.

According to the organization chart of April, 1941 the anti-tank battalion of a regular infantry division was supposed to have 21 armored caterpillar tow-tractor "Komsomolets" per 18 anti-tank cannons. So, for the total level of equipment under the nominal requirements of all infantry divisions (and all mechanized divisions which according to the nominal level of equipment were supposed to have 27 "Komsomolets") were needed 4,596 tow-tractors of this type. As of 15 June, 1941 the Red Army already had 6,672 "Komsomolets". But MP-41 has the number 7,802.

Every one of the 179 infantry (excluding the mountain-infantry) divisions nominally had to have 78 tow-tractors (excluding the "Komsomolets"). At that the nominal numbers were exceptionally generous. For instance, a howitzer regiment in a regular — not to confuse with the mechanized — infantry division for 36 howitzers, according to the list of equipment, has 72 tractors. The total for the entire infantry - 13,962 tractors. The complete equipment level for all 30 mechanized corps was to be 9,330 tractors and specialized tow-tractors.

Another first-priority receiver of the mechanical towing equipment — the anti-tank artillery brigades. By 1 July, 1941 it was planned to deploy 10 such brigades, each one with 120 powerful (76-, 85- and 107-mm) cannons for whose transportation the nominal level was 165 tow-tractors. Correspondingly, for all anti-tank artillery brigades 1,650 more units of mechanical towing were needed.

The artillery regiments of the corps and the reserve artillery regiments had different equipment levels and organization. Assuming the average equipment level of 36 guns and taking into account the double reserve we come up with about 12,100 tow-tractors needed for providing for the complete equipment level in all (94 corps and 74 regiments of the reserve) nonintegrated artillery regiments.

Altogether, all combat units and groupings of the entire Red Army (including the Urals, Siberian and central Asian military districts removed by thousands of kilometers from the western border) needed, under the "super-generous" roster normative, about 37,000 tow-tractors. Actually the forces had by 15 June, 1941 36,300 tractors and tow-tractors (plus 6,700 "Komsomolets").

The MP-41 compilers demanded 83,045 tractors and tow-tractors. 36,300 is 44% from 83,000. This is where this nasty "44 percent of their tractors" comes from.

It's interesting what Zhukov has to say in his memoirs about MP-41: "Remembering how and what we, the military, demanded from the industry in the last months of peace I see that sometimes we did not fully considered the real economic possibilities of the country. Although from our so-to-speak institutional point of view we were right".

In translation: the Red Army brass inputted into the mobilization plan exorbitant, unsubstantiated and consciously undoable requests for the material-technical supplies of the army. Those very percents Glantz (and others) are brandishing around are computed relative to the numbers in the mobilization plan MP-41.
could go on, but hopefully you get the point and will get a copy of Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus" as a starter. If your issues are with Glantz, then take them up with him. All of the above is cited from original Soviet source material and there is a mountain of it in all of Glantz' books.
Glantz's work had been subjected to some serious criticism since 1998, for instance in russian historian's work M.Solonin, where I took the data from.
Is "Stumbling Colossus" your only source on the subject?

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#894

Post by Appleknocker27 » 06 Feb 2013, 03:37

Your thoughts on Glatz' sources? How about an almost complete lack of driver training? Perhaps you should actually read the whole book with an open mind looking objectively at the facts presented instead of the cynical mistrust you're obviously harboring?

Yes, there are many books out there on Barbarossa specifically, about 45 of them are on my shelf that I've accumulated over the last 25 years.... Glantz happens to be the most succinct.

Andy Syl
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:26

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#895

Post by Andy Syl » 06 Feb 2013, 04:19

Appleknocker27 wrote:Your thoughts on Glatz' sources?
What of them? Every source has to examined critically. That's basic stuff for every historian, amateur or professional. I work in the field, albeit I am specialized in medieval and Renaissance history. Do you presume that sources cannot be inaccurate or misleading?

Let's take this example you provided about the colonel Pushkin. It's the only one among those you posted which mentions lack of driver training.
Pushkin sent his report on 14 July. But, by that time, Pushkin had lost his whole division. His major concern would not have been how to provide an accurate picture to the General Staff, but how to save his head.
The drivers could have had training or not, but who is going to check on brave colonel Pushkin, since most of the division personnel are dead or captured? "Blame the dead man" has been a common technique for covering one's ass in case of defeat.

And, speaking of which, how could col. Pushkin know whether his tanks were lost because the "drivers were untrained" if he also had only 30% of its radio and, thus, according to some claims, "no way to know where his units were and what they were doing"?
Perhaps you should actually read the whole book with an open mind looking objectively at the facts presented instead of the cynical mistrust you're obviously harboring?
Yeah, right. "Open-mind" means accepting misleading statements without question?
Once I have noticed signficant inadvertencies, of course I am going to be mistrustful of the respective author. What on Earth would you expect?
Besides, read the book "with an open mind"? After I provided you with actual figures for one of the issues mentioned, both overall and per type of unit, I explained you where does the percent come from, this after I detailed as well the issue of the radios?
Glantz's opinion isn't the freaking law of gravity, you know.

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#896

Post by Appleknocker27 » 06 Feb 2013, 04:52

After 15 yrs of internet forums I know when to call a spade a spade as you say. Good luck

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#897

Post by steverodgers801 » 06 Feb 2013, 05:40

Okay, what are your credentials that you know more then Glantz who spent 20 some years studying the war, speaks fluent Russian, has read the original material and was a trained officer. The problem is that you throw a few numbers around as if numbers mean anything alone. Do you know that every division had all the radios it was suppose to, that all radios were working and people were propely trained? what is the ratio of radios for a Soviet division compared to a German. If the Soviets were so prepared how come they were defeated even after the initial period.

Omeganian
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 02 Jan 2012, 17:53

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#898

Post by Omeganian » 06 Feb 2013, 06:11

steverodgers801 wrote:Okay, what are your credentials that you know more then Glantz who spent 20 some years studying the war, speaks fluent Russian, has read the original material and was a trained officer.
In the introduction to the Stumbling Colossus, Glantz asks how a man with Suvorov's low rank could have access to archives. Are we supposed to trust a so called specialist who doesn't know the first thing about the Soviet military promotion system? Or didn't even open Suvorov's books before criticizing him? I am reluctant to do so.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#899

Post by steverodgers801 » 06 Feb 2013, 06:46

what do you mean about doesnt know about the promotion system. He was a specialist because the army paid him to do so. Also since Glantz has been in the archives he saw there were no plans. Ive read Suvorov and found little to believe.

Omeganian
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 02 Jan 2012, 17:53

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#900

Post by Omeganian » 06 Feb 2013, 07:08

steverodgers801 wrote:what do you mean about doesnt know about the promotion system.
In the Soviet Army, you look at the position, not the rank. Suvorov was studying for and held an intel colonel's position. The low rank only shows he was young, and therefore must have been very capable and trusted.
steverodgers801 wrote: Also since Glantz has been in the archives he saw there were no plans.
Was he? The footnotes in the Russian edition of TSC imply rather limited access, and some real problem with interpretation even of open sources (the guy can't even keep the dates straight).

Locked

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”