Books of Viktor Suvorov contains a lot of myths

[LWD]

I think Suvorov is not worthy of discussion. For this purpose there are forums of science fiction and a fantasy.

Every topic is worthy of discussion if there’s but one man interested in it.
...

I tend to agree but for different reasons. People keep using him as a source here (mostly newcomers fortunatly). Having a single thread that points out all the probems with his works is advantageous.

[bulgarianlawyer]

Suvorov’s thesis is actually not as far from the conventional history as is usually believed. Let’s start with assertion that Germany invaded USSR to prevent Soviet invasion. The fact that Hitler was nervous about the Rumanian oil fields has been well and long established. And his assertion that Germany was military insignificant compared to USA, USSR and in some respects even to Great Britain has been substantiated in detail in a lot of serious books, one of these is ‘Brute force’ by John Ellis, a book I recommend you. From here to the ‘Icebreaker’ there’s just one step.

When I first read the Icebreaker I was amazed not so much of the thesis, but because most of the facts stated there were not new to me, but that I’ve never connected them in such a simple and obvious way. Let’s take the fact that Soviet airfields were too close to the border. This is repeated even in the Soviet era propaganda films of which I (as somebody born in a communist country) had to see a lot during my childhood.

[janner]

I think Suvorov is not worthy of discussion. For this purpose there are forums of science fiction and a fantasy.

Every topic is worthy of discussion if there’s but one man interested in it.
...

I tend to agree but for different reasons. People keep using him as a source here (mostly newcomers fortunatly). Having a single thread that points out all the probems with his works is advantageous.

I agree - the only good Rezun brought was the amount of research that followed to debunk the poor science behind his works. I suspect that he still rumbles on because his is a story that some would wish was true for personal/political motives.

A single source listing all the inaccuracies might prove useful - especially as journalists (and many others) rely heavily on the internet for their research.

Regards,

[bulgarianlawyer]

You are just repeating: inaccuracies, inaccuracies. This is a judgment. What about the facts? The book ‘Anti-Suvorov’ that was mentioned here lists a lot of these however nothing on the main ones. For example no respectable researcher could deny that the USSR at the time was the country with the greatest number of tanks and with the best tanks in the world. 24 thousand opposed to the Germany’s 3,5 thousand and T-34s and KVs vs. Germany’s pitiful panzers 1 and 2. How could this be explained unless USSR had aggressive plans for WWII ?

[Kunikov]

You are just repeating: inaccuracies, inaccuracies. This is a judgment. What about the facts? The book ‘Anti-Suvorov’ that was mentioned here lists a lot of these however nothing on the main ones. For example no respectable researcher could deny that the USSR at the time was the country with the greatest number of tanks and with the best tanks in the world. 24 thousand opposed to the Germany’s 3,5 thousand and T-34s and KVs vs. Germany’s pitiful panzers 1 and 2. How could this be explained unless USSR had aggressive plans for WWII ?

How often does it have to be repeated that any defensive action on the part of the Red Army would inevitably be followed up by offensive actions? Your numbers are also very skewed. The majority of those 20,000+ tanks were being phased out as they were old, obsolete, rusted through, etc. The Soviet Union also has a border longer and greater than that of Germany.

[bulgarianlawyer]

The majority of those 20,000+ tanks were being phased out as they were old, obsolete, rusted through, etc. The Soviet Union also has a border longer and greater than that of Germany.

The majority of these 20 000 + tanks were obsolete only compared to the T – 34s and the KVs. They were not obsolete compared to the 3 000 + German tanks. Let’s remember what these German tanks were! Even the Germans themselves did not call them tanks! It’s worth remembering that Pz is short for Pzkw, itself an abbreviation of Panzerkampfwagen or armored fighting vehicle. I’ve been a tankman myself and I would not call a machine that has 20 mm gun a tank. In most countries 20 mm is a caliber for a machine-gun, not for an artillery piece! And what was the caliber of most of the German tank guns at the time?

On the other hand most of the Soviet machines you call obsolete were armed with bigger caliber guns. And the comparisons don’t stop here. The so called ‘obsolete’ tanks had no lesser armor than the German ‘modern’ ones and had higher muzzle velocity and had better engines, not to mention that they had diesel engines. Why do you think that during the war the Germans were coping Soviet tanks and not the other way around? The Panther is nothing but a poor copy of the T-34. And who was the first to introduce sloped armor? The Soviets, then the Germans and now it’s a standard all over the world. The same goes for the diesel engines, gear box and engine being together and for a lot of other features that I have no idea how to translate into English and which are a standard nowadays. Thus if we bravely call MOST of the Soviet tanks obsolete we have to call ALL of the German ones obsolete too!

I have to agree with your slogan here: opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence. Everyone knows that the Germans are and always have been technically advanced industrial nation so their tanks at the time had to be better than the Russian one! Nice prejudice, but where are the facts? Under Moskow the 'better' German tanks could not move, but the Russian ones had no problems. Which one you would call obsolete: the machine that breaks or the machine that works smoothly?

As for the longer border, I understand this argument from the book Anti-suvorov. What I don’t understand is how the Soviet-German border was longer than the German-Soviet border! Or may be the Soviets were producing massive numbers of tanks in order to use them in some other direction? And – if so – how come that most of these massive numbers at the time were set against Europe?

[LWD]

You are just repeating: inaccuracies, inaccuracies. This is a judgment. What about the facts? The book ‘Anti-Suvorov’ that was mentioned here lists a lot of these however nothing on the main ones...

If it is shown that something stated as a fact is wrong then it's not judgement it's a fact. If you take a dozen data points of which say 2 or 3 are false and try to reason from them then you will likely come to a false conclusion and have defintily not proven your case. Indeed even a single false data point can bring the whole train of logic into question. Suvorov uses a mix of good data and bad data and leaps of faith instead of logic to come to his conclusions. Some or indeed all of them could be correct but he doesn't make a good case for them. There are gems to be gathered from his books but they for the most part take considerable care and thought to find.

[Art]

There are some typical "tank" myths in the Suvorov's books. Despite the fact that they were discussed for many times thay continue to be encountered even now, so it's worth to comment some as a preventive measure.

The majority of these 20 000 + tanks were obsolete only compared to the T – 34s and the KVs. They were not obsolete compared to the 3 000 + German tanks.

Germany had about 6 thousands tank and assault guns (either domestic or Czech) at the start of "Barbarossa".

And what was the caliber of most of the German tank guns at the time?

The most mass types were Pz-III or Pz -35/38(t) armed with 37/50 mm guns.

On the other hand most of the Soviet machines you call obsolete were armed with bigger caliber guns.

That is 45-mm or the same caliber class as German tank guns. And let's not forget about T-37A/38/40 and early or flamethrower verisions of T-26s armed with machineguns.

The so called ‘obsolete’ tanks had no lesser armor than the German ‘modern’ ones

Both T-26s and BTs had thinner armor than Pz-III/IV or even Pz-38(t) of the later versions.

not to mention that they had diesel engines

Only BT-7m (about 700 tanks produced). All the others had petrol engines.

Why do you think that during the war the Germans were coping Soviet tanks and not the other way around? The Panther is nothing but a poor copy of the T-34.

That's a myth. The only similar feature is the sloped armor, the general design, suspension, engine, gear box, armament etc were different.

And who was the first to introduce sloped armor?

The French, I guess.

The same goes for .... gear box and engine being together

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rena ... iagram.jpg
If I'm not mistaken this type of design was called "classical" of "Renault" type in Soviet literature.
To make a short conclusion Suvorov when he discusses tank design mostly relies on good old "Russia is the homeland of elephants" sources of stagnation era adding a lot of wierd ideas of his own. Without doubt Soviet tank designers were not losers, but it's not the reason to believe that they invented everything in the world.

[Kunikov]

The majority of those 20,000+ tanks were being phased out as they were old, obsolete, rusted through, etc. The Soviet Union also has a border longer and greater than that of Germany.

The majority of these 20 000 + tanks were obsolete only compared to the T – 34s and the KVs. They were not obsolete compared to the 3 000 + German tanks. Let’s remember what these German tanks were! Even the Germans themselves did not call them tanks! It’s worth remembering that Pz is short for Pzkw, itself an abbreviation of Panzerkampfwagen or armored fighting vehicle. I’ve been a tankman myself and I would not call a machine that has 20 mm gun a tank. In most countries 20 mm is a caliber for a machine-gun, not for an artillery piece! And what was the caliber of most of the German tank guns at the time?

On the other hand most of the Soviet machines you call obsolete were armed with bigger caliber guns. And the comparisons don’t stop here. The so called ‘obsolete’ tanks had no lesser armor than the German ‘modern’ ones and had higher muzzle velocity and had better engines, not to mention that they had diesel engines. Why do you think that during the war the Germans were coping Soviet tanks and not the other way around? The Panther is nothing but a poor copy of the T-34. And who was the first to introduce sloped armor? The Soviets, then the Germans and now it’s a standard all over the world. The same goes for the diesel engines, gear box and engine being together and for a lot of other features that I have no idea how to translate into English and which are a standard nowadays. Thus if we bravely call MOST of the Soviet tanks obsolete we have to call ALL of the German ones obsolete too!

I have to agree with your slogan here: opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence. Everyone knows that the Germans are and always have been technically advanced industrial nation so their tanks at the time had to be better than the Russian one! Nice prejudice, but where are the facts? Under Moskow the 'better' German tanks could not move, but the Russian ones had no problems. Which one you would call obsolete: the machine that breaks or the machine that works smoothly?

As for the longer border, I understand this argument from the book Anti-suvorov. What I don’t understand is how the Soviet-German border was longer than the German-Soviet border! Or may be the Soviets were producing massive numbers of tanks in order to use them in some other direction? And – if so – how come that most of these massive numbers at the time were set against Europe?

Art did an excellent job of showing how and where you are wrong. All I can say is that you're perpetrating a number of fallacies. Soviet tanks were obsolete when compared to newer Soviet tanks, I wasn't talking about their German counter-parts. Because they were obsolete when compared to the T-34 and KV 1 thousands of the older models were left as is, that is were not properly maintained. That is the truth, as much as you might not like to believe it.

I am not speaking solely of the German-Soviet border but of the ENTIRE Soviet border, that is with Finland, Turkey, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc. As for why most of the tanks were located in the European part of the Soviet Union, well, that's easy enough to understand. Germany was the bigger threat.

[Art]

BTW, here is some semi-offtopic comment on tanks classification. The Soviet pre-war classification of tanks included the following categories:
1. small tanks (weght <5 tons, armed with machineguns)
2. light tanks (between 5 and 15 tons, armed with small-caliber guns)
3. medium tanks ( up to 30 tons)
4. heavy (more than 30 tons, armed with several guns)
5. Special (engineer, bridging, APCs, command etc)
See Тактика танковых войск ("Tank troops tactics") by Kuznetsov published in 1941. This classification became outdated allredy during the war, but as far as one touches pre-war period it remains relevant.
So both PZ-I and T-38s were tanks according to Soviet classification.
Suvorov discusses classifiaction of tanks in "Icebreaker" IIRC, but not very succesfully becausy he applies post-war classification to pre-war vehicles.

[Otto Fuchs]

USSR did not plan for a war against Germany in 1941.

That is true.

The original plan was to attack in 1942. That is the reason why the Red Army had only 24.000 tanks in June 1941 and not 29.000 as was sceduled. The third Five-Year-Plan was to be fulfilled at the end of 1942, so, there was a whole one year's production of tanks (and any other other material) lacking.

But Stalin had no other choice than to attack earlier as he realised late in 1940 that Hitler was not willing to fight with Britain. It was thus no use to wait any longer. In May 1941 there was the flight of Rudolf Hess to Scotland. Stalin was quite sure that Churchill, with his Jewish mother, would never negotiate with Hitler, but he couldn't be sure that Churchill would not be replaced by another, more Germanophile lord. Originally, Stalin had wished that Germany should first crash the whole of Europe, including Britain, and thereby exhaust herself. After the whole of Europe sunk into "Nazi-slavery" he, Stalin, could emerge as the "liberator" not only of the proletarians but also the bourgeoises of all countries. But as Hitler failed to follow this plot, now Stalin had to wish that Britain stayed "alive" as long as possible. The attack had to be unleashed before Germany and Britain came to an agreement, which was - Stalin feared - possible any time.

[Art]

The original plan was to attack in 1942.

It's a popular statetement, but it lacks a certain basis. In brief words no documents sheduling an attack on Germany in 1942 are known. And it should be added that no certain target date appeared in the documents of Soviet ar planing prepared before the war, at least in those that were published.

The third Five-Year-Plan was to be fulfilled at the end of 1942

Again the military planing was made in such manner as to allow to wage war in every moment of time if needed, but not only after some certain date.

[Boby]

Ribbentrop mentioned the famous Stalin Speech of 5 May 1941 [He said the date was 5 April] to the Bulgarians on 19 October 1943, as a proof of the agressive plans of Stalin. He said that by August 1941, Stalin planned to atack germany. The information was based in sources from Moscow and London, and the interrogation of Soviet Generals who were present.

The source is an documentary article by O. Vishlev in "Novaja i novejšaja istorija", Nr. 1 (1999), pp. 93-115

Vishlev dismissed the stataments of Ribbentrop as mere propaganda.

Boby,

[bulgarianlawyer]

I am not speaking solely of the German-Soviet border but of the ENTIRE Soviet border, that is with Finland, Turkey, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc. As for why most of the tanks were located in the European part of the Soviet Union, well, that's easy enough to understand. Germany was the bigger threat.

So the Soviet Union produced so many tanks because it has long border with Finland, Turkey, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc although these tanks were concentrated on the border with one country only. Do you see the contradiction? If they were concentrated against the ‘biggest threat’, the border with Finland, Turkey, etc, no matter how long, does not explain the extensive tank production, does it? It the long border was the reason the tanks will be along this long border.

Besides a long border that has to be defended has little to do with tank production. A tank by its nature is an offensive weapon. Of course it can be used in defence (say as an anti-tank weapon) but it would be much cheaper to use an anti-tank gun. We have just to remember how tanks came into being in WW1. In defence trenches and bunkers are good enough.

[Kunikov]

I am not speaking solely of the German-Soviet border but of the ENTIRE Soviet border, that is with Finland, Turkey, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc. As for why most of the tanks were located in the European part of the Soviet Union, well, that's easy enough to understand. Germany was the bigger threat.

So the Soviet Union produced so many tanks because it has long border with Finland, Turkey, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc although these tanks were concentrated on the border with one country only. Do you see the contradiction? If they were concentrated against the ‘biggest threat’, the border with Finland, Turkey, etc, no matter how long, does not explain the extensive tank production, does it? It the long border was the reason the tanks will be along this long border.

There is no contradiction here. Nor were the tanks concentrated against only one country, in fact, they were spread out throughout the Western Military Districts which means they could be used against Romania, Germany, or Finland in the west.

Besides a long border that has to be defended has little to do with tank production. A tank by its nature is an offensive weapon. Of course it can be used in defence (say as an anti-tank weapon) but it would be much cheaper to use an anti-tank gun. We have just to remember how tanks came into being in WW1. In defence trenches and bunkers are good enough.

Soviet defensive strategy revolved around an offensive mindset.