Books of Viktor Suvorov contains a lot of myths

[Oleg Grigoryev]

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.

In defence trenches and bunkers are good enough.

Something like that was probably said by the folks that designed Maginot line

[bulgarianlawyer]

against Romania, Germany, or Finland.

These being Germany’s allies. In particular Rumania being its main oil supplier. A strike against Rumania would have been mortal for Germany for that reason.

Thus I claim again that the long border does not explain this extraordinary tank production.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

against Romania, Germany, or Finland.

These being Germany’s allies. In particular Rumania being its main oil supplier. A strike against Rumania would have been mortal for Germany for that reason.

Thus I claim again that the long border does not explain this extraordinary tank production.

Interesting ... so how many tanks in your opinion should be sufficient for the defensive purposes - and why?

[bulgarianlawyer]

Soviet defensive strategy revolved around an offensive mindset.

This is just brilliant. This way one could substantiate anything. We develop offensive weapons but this is for defence as our strategy revolves around an offensive mindset. Or we develop defensive weapons but this is for offensive because our strategy…….

In fact there is such a thing as defensive weapon and such a thing as offensive weapon although a lot of weapons are good both for defence and offence. Such is the case with the small arms and with a lot of the artillery systems, say with the howitzers. But hardly with such things as anti-tank artillery pieces which shoot high velocity small calibre rounds and are good against advancing heavily armoured targets. The same goes with the fighters which are more needed in defence against bombers although they could be used as fighter escort in a bomber offensive.

The same certainly goes for tanks. These are very expensive machines because they could not only shoot, but move as well. If we strip them of their wheels, motors, etc and put their guns and machine-guns in a concrete bunker, we’ll be better protected for less money. For much less money.

[bulgarianlawyer]

Something like that was probably said by the folks that designed Maginot line

Yes and they proved to be right because the Maginot line was not penetrated but outflanked.

[bulgarianlawyer]

Interesting ... so how many tanks in your opinion should be sufficient for the defensive purposes - and why?

Zero. I say this as a former T-55 tankman. Because with the money saved we could buy or build a lot more effective defensive means. A war is after all about economics, not just heroism. In fact it's more about economics than heroism.

A tank is an effective defensive weapon and of course could be used as such. But then again we could use a submarine for commercial shipping or a microscope for nut crucking.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Soviet defensive strategy revolved around an offensive mindset.

This is just brilliant. This way one could substantiate anything. We develop offensive weapons but this is for defence as our strategy revolves around an offensive mindset. Or we develop defensive weapons but this is for offensive because our strategy…….

In fact there is such a thing as defensive weapon and such a thing as offensive weapon although a lot of weapons are good both for defence and offence. Such is the case with the small arms and with a lot of the artillery systems, say with the howitzers. But hardly with such things as anti-tank artillery pieces which shoot high velocity small calibre rounds and are good against advancing heavily armoured targets. The same goes with the fighters which are more needed in defence against bombers although they could be used as fighter escort in a bomber offensive.

The same certainly goes for tanks. These are very expensive machines because they could not only shoot, but move as well. If we strip them of their wheels, motors, etc and put their guns and machine-guns in a concrete bunker, we’ll be better protected for less money. For much less money.

sure thing .. so how exactly are you planing to deal with enemy armor that broke through your fixed defenses and is racing to you rear? The entire history of WW II is a testament that it is impossible to protect oneself relying on fixed line of defense. The main events of the entire campagins are armored thrusts and counter thrusts. Cannot defend oneself with shield alone - need a sword to strike back.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Interesting ... so how many tanks in your opinion should be sufficient for the defensive purposes - and why?

Zero. I say this as a former T-55 tankman. Because with the money saved we could buy or build a lot more effective defensive means. A war is after all about economics, not just heroism. In fact it's more about economics than heroism.

A tank is an effective defensive weapon and of course could be used as such. But then again we could use a submarine for commercial shipping or a microscope for nut crucking.

Interesting so - all other European states - prior to German rearmament and Soviet build up -were going to attack somebody?

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Something like that was probably said by the folks that designed Maginot line

Yes and they proved to be right because the Maginot line was not penetrated but outflanked.

Actually it was penetrated -just like every other fixed line of defense during WW II.

During the advance to the English Channel, the Germans overran France's border defense with Belgium and several Maginot Forts in the Maubeuge area, whilst the Luftwaffe simply flew over it. On 19 May, the German 16th Army successfully captured petit ouvrage La Ferte (southeast of Sedan) after conducting a deliberate assault by combat engineers backed up by heavy artillery. The entire French crew of 107 soldiers were killed during the action. On June 14, 1940, the day Paris fell, the German 1st Army went over to the offensive in "Operation Tiger" and attacked the Maginot Line between St. Avold and Saarbrücken. The Germans then broke through the fortification line as defending French forces retreated southward. In the following days, infantry divisions of the 1st Army attacked fortifications on each side of the penetration; successfully capturing four petits ouvrages. The 1st Army also conducted two attacks against the Maginot Line further to the east in northern Alsace. One attack successfully broke through a weak section of the Line in the Vosges Mountains, but a second attack was stopped by the French defenders near Wissembourg. On 15 June, infantry divisions of the German 7th Army attacked across the Rhine River in Operation "Small Bear", penetrating the defenses and capturing the cities of Colmar and Strasbourg.

PS - for future references : http://downloads.sturmpanzer.net/MLW/Th ... rriers.pdf

[Kunikov]

Soviet defensive strategy revolved around an offensive mindset.

This is just brilliant. This way one could substantiate anything. We develop offensive weapons but this is for defence as our strategy revolves around an offensive mindset. Or we develop defensive weapons but this is for offensive because our strategy…….

One doesn't need to substantiate anything but the truth.

In fact there is such a thing as defensive weapon and such a thing as offensive weapon although a lot of weapons are good both for defence and offence. Such is the case with the small arms and with a lot of the artillery systems, say with the howitzers. But hardly with such things as anti-tank artillery pieces which shoot high velocity small calibre rounds and are good against advancing heavily armoured targets. The same goes with the fighters which are more needed in defence against bombers although they could be used as fighter escort in a bomber offensive.

Defensive weapons and offensive weapons are not mutually exclusive, both can exist, and do exist, at the same time. Soviet defensive lines, the Stalin and Molotov line, are well enough known. But the Soviets understood that fixed fortifications were not a long term solution. Thus the emphasis on offensive warfare which would take center stage after an initial period of border skirmishes.

The same certainly goes for tanks. These are very expensive machines because they could not only shoot, but move as well. If we strip them of their wheels, motors, etc and put their guns and machine-guns in a concrete bunker, we’ll be better protected for less money. For much less money.

Yes, for less money, but you'll also lose and lose all that money you've been saving.

[LWD]

Something like that was probably said by the folks that designed Maginot line

Yes and they proved to be right because the Maginot line was not penetrated but outflanked.

Actually it was penetrated -just like every other fixed line of defense during WW II....

The Maginot line held up quite well and had it not been out flanked would probably have stopped the Germans as French counter attacks could have retaken any parts that were acutally breached. I would also argue that not "every other fixed line of defense" was penetrated during WWII. Indeed I can think of at least one lightly held one that was not.

[Kunikov]

Something like that was probably said by the folks that designed Maginot line

Yes and they proved to be right because the Maginot line was not penetrated but outflanked.

Actually it was penetrated -just like every other fixed line of defense during WW II....

The Maginot line held up quite well and had it not been out flanked would probably have stopped the Germans as French counter attacks could have retaken any parts that were acutally breached. I would also argue that not "every other fixed line of defense" was penetrated during WWII. Indeed I can think of at least one lightly held one that was not.

You'd have to agree that overall, fixed defenses, as with the case in pre-modern Europe, were/are only a passing fad which were turned obsolete within a few generations (back then) of their emergence (after which they could only begin playing catch-up).

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Something like that was probably said by the folks that designed Maginot line

Yes and they proved to be right because the Maginot line was not penetrated but outflanked.

Actually it was penetrated -just like every other fixed line of defense during WW II....

The Maginot line held up quite well and had it not been out flanked would probably have stopped the Germans as French counter attacks could have retaken any parts that were acutally breached. I would also argue that not "every other fixed line of defense" was penetrated during WWII. Indeed I can think of at least one lightly held one that was not.

"Held quite well" is not the same thing as "was not breached". I don't know how successful French counterattack would be, but I am going to argue that in order to have solid chance of success they would have to utilize armored support during it, which is what current argument is all about really. Our Bulgarian (judging by his nick) fellow poster argues that you don't need tank at all if you plan being on defensive. I cannot think of any permanent fortification line that manged to hold determined enemy attack by being purely passive-defensive.

[LWD]

... You'd have to agree that overall, fixed defenses, as with the case in pre-modern Europe, were/are only a passing fad which were turned obsolete within a few generations (back then) of their emergence (after which they could only begin playing catch-up).

Not really. Purely static defences were never particularly effective except for defending points. However when combined with mobile forces that allowed for counter attack or to channel attacks they were and are quite useful.

[Kunikov]

... You'd have to agree that overall, fixed defenses, as with the case in pre-modern Europe, were/are only a passing fad which were turned obsolete within a few generations (back then) of their emergence (after which they could only begin playing catch-up).

Not really. Purely static defences were never particularly effective except for defending points. However when combined with mobile forces that allowed for counter attack or to channel attacks they were and are quite useful.

See above, we're talking about static defense solely, not combined with any type of 'mobile' forces.