Why russians first??

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 01:39
Location: North

#16

Post by witness » 07 Feb 2003, 15:35

Just out of curiousity ..
Does anybody know how many German divisions were engaged in the Western(vs Eastern ) front ?Any numbers to compare ?
Thanks in advance
P.S.
One more factor to consider - very often the Germans were more then willing to surrender to the Western Allies just to avoid the fate of being captured by the Russians ( this is frequently mentioned in "The fall
of Berlin" by A. Beevor ) :)

Krasnaya Zvezda
Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002, 18:45
Location: Moscow

#17

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 07 Feb 2003, 17:25

witness wrote:Just out of curiousity ..
Does anybody know how many German divisions were engaged in the Western(vs Eastern ) front ?Any numbers to compare ?
Thanks in advance
P.S.
One more factor to consider - very often the Germans were more then willing to surrender to the Western Allies just to avoid the fate of being captured by the Russians ( this is frequently mentioned in "The fall
of Berlin" by A. Beevor ) :)
Hi Witness,

The number of German division used in Barbarossa:

148 divisions including 19 Panzer divisions totalling 3,050,000 troops

18 Finnish divisions (500,000 men)

14 Romanian divisions (250,000 men)


5 more German divisions under the direct command of the High Command of the Armed Forces ( Oberkommando der Wehrmacht or OKW ) were set aside for an attack out of northern Finland to cut the Murmansk Railroad.

3 Slovakian divisions

Elements equivalent to 1 Hungarian division.

Italy provided some additional troops as well


In comparison during this time 1941, in France 38 divisions were employed, this includes Belgium and Netherlands, Whole Scandinavia including Finland 14 divisions, and africa 2 divisions.

in 1942 number of only German divisons (without their axis allies)

In Soviet Union 171, 34 motorized. During same time 27 divisions in France and Benelux, 17 divisions in Scandinavia and only 3 divisions in North africa. The famous North Africa that evreyone think was one of the toughes battlefiled in WWII!

In 1943 179 divisions employed in Soviet Union, 28 motorized, at the same time 42 divisions in France and Benelux, 18 in Scandinavia, none in Africa

In 1944 157 Divisions in Soviet Union 309 motorized, the number is smaller cause the Germans are not holding any more the territory they had in Soviet Union in previous years. France has 56 divisions, Scandinavia 19 and Italy 22 divisions.


All in all, Soviet Union obliterated 607 German divisions, while all western allies together, UK, USA, France, and so on, on all the fronts in Western Europe and North Africa destroyed 176 divisions. Barbarossa absorbed up to 75% of the Army, while 750 000 German civilian lives ceased in the Bombing campaign of RAF and US Ariforce.


User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 01:39
Location: North

#18

Post by witness » 07 Feb 2003, 17:40

Thank you Zvezda ! :D
All in all, Soviet Union obliterated 607 German divisions, while all western allies together, UK, USA, France, and so on, on all the fronts in Western Europe and North Africa destroyed 176 divisions
Talk about the "right " to take Berlin :roll:
Best Regards

User avatar
sniper
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 22 Jan 2003, 18:31
Location: Venezuela

#19

Post by sniper » 07 Feb 2003, 18:53

Very interesting information, and more to make everybody's own idea of why things hapened the way they did, even though IMO the topic is gone somewhere else discussing things that maybe are not "that" important, such as different armies "tactics" and maybe ideology and/or motivation, that's a whole different topic to talk about. Both Caldric and Krasnaya are right in some way, They have both stated good points, but if you look closer, those points didn't make the difference on who were gonna take Berlin, if the russians were there first there, why not? I mean would the allieds had waited for them? I don't know, and I don't think so BTW. The russians fought a bigger part of the german army but through a smaller distance, and "maybe" the other part of the Wehrmacht in the west were stronger, and so on, there are a lot of things that could be said.
And IMHO at the point Berlin was going to be taken almost any allied army could have done it, so the russians had the "honour", but if you have an idea of history you know that could have been different.

I have a lot of respect for all armies fighting during WWII including the german one, and many times it wasn't a matter of capability but a matter of circusntances (sp?), so we shall not think nor say one was better than the other cause things hapened the way they did and every amy did their cooperation the get the war to and end, and maybe to see differences we should go to the "what if" section and discuss it, and even doing that we won't know it.

Thnx

Kike

Somosierra
Member
Posts: 281
Joined: 29 Dec 2002, 01:16
Location: POLAND

In my opinion there was a political deal – very unmoral…

#20

Post by Somosierra » 07 Feb 2003, 20:41

In my opinion there was a political deal – very unmoral…

First - Soviets (not mentioned GB) were not able to win the WWII without the USA. If there was just one front, Germany would win the war. Remember, they worked on A-bomb, besides Russians had no tactics – just “Vpieriod!” – “attack of millions”. Just imagine – 1944: no Normandy, no other fronts, no thousands of US bombers, no millions of tons of American equipment, etc. = Adolf Hitler is the winner (his generals knew military tactics, very well).

Second – If there was an attack from Balkans, Soviets were not able to get all Poland and Berlin. But there was a political deal – very unmoral and very secret.

And Third – There were many bizarre co-incidents, like Patton’s death and many others.

Regards,
Somosierra.

P.S. Our Re-taken Lands on west were not a gift from Stalin – he took half of Poland and cities same important as Warsaw and Cracow. It was the aim of Polish government since September, 1 1939 (even in 1945, Soviets were not eager to give Poland Stettin – Polish authorities just took it).

User avatar
sniper
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 22 Jan 2003, 18:31
Location: Venezuela

#21

Post by sniper » 07 Feb 2003, 20:57

Yeah but remember that germans were going to have the A-bomb ready in 1947 so you can't count on that and about the secret deal, how can e know?

Thnx

Kike

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 01:39
Location: North

#22

Post by witness » 07 Feb 2003, 21:25

sniper wrote:"maybe" the other part of the Wehrmacht in the west were stronger..
Is your "maybe" based on something ..?
What parts of Wehrmacht were "stronger " in the West then in the East ? 8O

User avatar
sniper
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 22 Jan 2003, 18:31
Location: Venezuela

#23

Post by sniper » 07 Feb 2003, 22:24

witness wrote:
sniper wrote:"maybe" the other part of the Wehrmacht in the west were stronger..
Is your "maybe" based on something ..?
What parts of Wehrmacht were "stronger " in the West then in the East ? 8O
Not at all, witness, I just said that as a suposition and not even serious that was the purpose of "", it was just a posibility among 1000's of many things that could have made any difference.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: In my opinion there was a political deal – very unmoral…

#24

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 07 Feb 2003, 22:32

Somosierra wrote:In my opinion there was a political deal – very unmoral…

First - Soviets (not mentioned GB) were not able to win the WWII without the USA. If there was just one front, Germany would win the war. Remember, they worked on A-bomb, besides Russians had no tactics – just “Vpieriod!” – “attack of millions”. Just imagine – 1944: no Normandy, no other fronts, no thousands of US bombers, no millions of tons of American equipment, etc. = Adolf Hitler is the winner (his generals knew military tactics, very well).

Second – If there was an attack from Balkans, Soviets were not able to get all Poland and Berlin. But there was a political deal – very unmoral and very secret.

And Third – There were many bizarre co-incidents, like Patton’s death and many others.

Regards,
Somosierra.

P.S. Our Re-taken Lands on west were not a gift from Stalin – he took half of Poland and cities same important as Warsaw and Cracow. It was the aim of Polish government since September, 1 1939 (even in 1945, Soviets were not eager to give Poland Stettin – Polish authorities just took it).
If there was no Normandy there still would be Bagration, Lvov-Sandomirez, etc – by 1944 Germans were largely defeated. Secondly Western aid was important but not critical, without it Soviets had defeated Germans and Stalingrad and Moscow, and using very small fraction off it threw them across the Dniper. And Poland was in no position dictate anything, so cute of some Poles to keep waling about lost Eastern colonies and keep quite when it comes to snatching of parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938 alongside with Hitler. As for Russian tactics – you know you should not write on the subject of which you are obviously have rather hazy idea.
he Soviet forces always prepared attacks by artillery fire and form the air. They favored long and massive artillery preparations. Following these preparations, tank
attacks were conducted in three waves. The first started at the moment when artillery fire stopped; heavy tanks moved forward escorted by infantry on foot, and it was their objective to destroy anti-tank artillery that had been discovered earlier, to draw fire of guns that had not been discovered, and to engage enemy armor appearing on the battlefield. The second wave followed at a distance of between 500 and 1000 yards; it consisted of medium tanks carrying infantry, and each tank was given a job of destroying a particular bunker pillbox or other manned position in the enemy. The second wave passed through the first wave as soon as antitank artillery resistance was broken. The third wave, composed similarly to the second, had the task of attacking enemy posts in the rear and exploiting the success of the second wave. Both the second and third
waves were followed by infantry, who occupied the ground gained, and this set the escorting infantry free to resume its proper work. The third wave, in turn, was followed by light tanks to protect the flanks and carry out reconnaissance after brake-through.

Defensive Tank Tactics. Every defensive position was straightened by single tank, which were dug in among the infantry position and used as armored anti-tank or machine-gun posts. The aim, however, remained to retain them as a mobile reserve. Defense positions in the rear were so planned that stationary and well camouflaged tanks should be posted at right angles to the expected direction of the enemy attack. The Soviet infantry allowed enemy attacking tanks to pass them, and only dealt with attacking infantry, trying to separate these form their tanks. Attacking enemy tanks that penetrated were dealt with by tank kept in reserve and camouflaged. Defending tanks were allotted exact areas to guard, and ranges for their fire. If, exceptionally, troops had to be withdrawn from defense position in daylight, the tanks covered the infantry withdrawals and then make leapfrog back themselves. Night withdrawals were preferred. Night Operations. Technique and tactics of night fighting were only developed for Soviet tanks during the war, but then they were highly developed. The Soviet doctrine is that the infantry must penetrate the enemy defense position in daylight and that tanks go into action at night, passing through the infantry. Such an operation is very carefully planed. Units are trained painstakingly for every attack. The operation is preceded by detailed reconnaissance of lanes, obstacles, and minefields. Moonlight is preferred so that tanks and escorting infantry can maintain their direction. Escorting infantry guide the tanks and help them find their targets. Tanks advance in several echelons to give the enemy the impression of far stronger forces advancing than are in fact, in the field Tank-accompanying infantry play a far more important part at night than during the day. They are taught that in no circumstances must they lose touch with the tanks. Once the target is reached the infantry prepare defenses, while the tanks are generally withdrawn so as to form a mobile reserve”.
German Lieutenant-General Fritz Bayerlin 1956. –such a horrendous tactics indeed.
:roll:

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#25

Post by Caldric » 07 Feb 2003, 23:30

As for the rest, that is off topic, and OK, we can discuss that one too. Are you tying to tell me that the American soldier was willing to sacrifice the same way as the Soviet? The tactics of the two armies were very different. Everything has its own advantage and disadvantage. For each american soldier that died 80 other Soviets did. Bombing of Hirishima and Nagasaki was a typical tactics used by USA. Targeted at civillians, and you ask yourself why? It is clear to avoid direct conflict with the enemy. Is it that really America could not win the war with Japan? Oh, I doubt. The strenght of USA was unsurpasable at those days, it is just that they did not wanted to wage the war anymore, and killing civillians was the last thing they worried about. I mean there is much more to talk about the differences in the apporach, yet this subject is totally off and I am affraid it will be locked. There is also much more to talk about the ferocities of war that Soviet experienced vs the one Americans did and of course the significance of allied help to the Soviet Union, rough statistics do exist.
If it is off topic I would suggest you not bring it up in the future. Comparing the American and Soviet war experience was your topic not mine. Also in total war as WWII was all people are targets, sad but true, the US did not target civilians it targetted the enemy is that simple. When you start a total mobilization of both military and civilian sectors then you have made your entire society a military target. Some will disagree and talk about the morals of war and honor and duty and such things, when in fact survival of ones society was very much in the balance, in such wars all things that give you an advantage are in most cases acceptable. Bombing of Japan was an acceptable consequence to the men in charge at the time, I have no doubt any major power in the war would have used any weapon it could to win. Has nothing to do with honor or being afraid to meet your enemy on the battlefield (which is what you are implying) but the simple savage truth; "your people are not as important as my people".

Germany, USSR, Japan, Italy, UK, USA, France, China all targetted civilians at one time or another. I do not think killing civilians was a major issue with any power involved in the war, including your own.

Japan lost the war just about as soon as they started it, the US would have defeated Japan bomb or no bomb. Sounds insane but I think the 2 atomic bombs saved Japan a great deal of suffering. But that is for another time.

As to your question on sacrifice, the American soldier had no motivation to sacrifice as the Soviet soldier did, our cities were not burnt to the ground and our people murdered and treated like beast such as the Germans treated Soviets. So I can see the Soviet sacrifice, however do not doubt for a moment that if it were the US they had done such to then the men in this country would have made the same sacrifices as the Red Army man.

Somosierra
Member
Posts: 281
Joined: 29 Dec 2002, 01:16
Location: POLAND

OLEG wrote:

#26

Post by Somosierra » 08 Feb 2003, 00:27

OLEG wrote:
--
“If there was no Normandy there still would be Bagration, Lvov-Sandomirez, etc – by 1944 Germans were largely defeated.”

- No, Germany still could win the war. Without the western front Germans would crush the Soviets.

“Secondly Western aid was important but not critical, without it Soviets had defeated Germans and Stalingrad and Moscow, and using very small fraction off it threw them across the Dniper.”

- No, most of Germans defeats were because of insane of Adolf Hitler, especially Stalingrad.

“And Poland was in no position dictate anything, so cute of some Poles to keep waling about lost Eastern colonies and keep quite when it comes to snatching of parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938 alongside with Hitler.”

- Congratulations, language of Mr. Molotov – “colonies”, “co-operation with Hitler”, etc. You forget that your country helped Adolf Hitler, until he broke that friendship in 1941.

“As for Russian tactics – you know you should not write on the subject of which you are obviously have rather hazy idea.”

- Yes, but your generals have idea – especially in Finland, Afghanistan and elsewhere

WITH NO OFFENCE, but your generals were just people who had “somewhere” human lives; short and fat people with breasts of 300 medals, alcoholic problems and faces from caves… They were only thinking about how to be a better puppy of Stalin; they were boasting to western allies how to order soldiers to take mine fields and they had infamous “3-days orgies” (many cities taken by Soviets were allowed by its high command to plunder for 3 days – murders, destruction, rapes, robberies, and others barbarous measures – fire camps in palaces and castles, and other Mongol measures; etc., etc.).

I do not write that against Russians, moreover I do think they are main victims of communism, also mentally; but I DO prefer Russians before the WWI…

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#27

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Feb 2003, 00:47

No, Germany still could win the war. Without the western front Germans would crush the Soviets.
welcome to planet Earth –where did come from? Never mind that not a single German offensive has reached its goal and by 1943 theywere in full retreat – they could have won sure thing.
Secondly Western aid was important but not critical, without it Soviets had defeated Germans and Stalingrad and Moscow, and using very small fraction off it threw them across the Dniper
sure ,sure it was Hitler who planned Barbarossa, Blau and Zitadel – OKH and OKW had nothing to do with it – they were all on the leave of absence due to family circumstances.
Congratulations, language of Mr. Molotov – “colonies”, “co-operation with Hitler”, etc. You forget that your country helped Adolf Hitler, until he broke that friendship in 1941.
says the representative of the country that participated alongside with Germany in slashing Czechoslovakia up, while USSR was actually mobilizing to help it
Yes, but your generals have idea – especially in Finland, Afghanistan and elsewhere
where elsewhere? We won Winter war, in Afghanistan casualty ratio was 1to10 in our favor, so what are you blabbing about?
WITH NO OFFENCE, but your generals were just people who had “somewhere” human lives; short and fat people with breasts of 300 medals, alcoholic problems and faces from caves… They were only thinking about how to be a better puppy of Stalin; they were boasting to western allies how to order soldiers to take mine fields and they had infamous “3-days orgies” (many cities taken by Soviets were allowed by its high command to plunder for 3 days – murders, destruction, rapes, robberies, and others barbarous measures – fire camps in palaces and castles, and other Mongol measures; etc., etc.).
sure, sure as oppose to Germans who lost tow world wars, or Westren allies who despite proclaiming the war and having half a year to prepare managed to miss pending German attack, and were thrown to the see.
I do not write that against Russians, moreover I do think they are main victims of communism, also mentally; but I DO prefer Russians before the WWI…
before WW I your country was a peripheral part of Empire.

Brit Fan
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 19 Jan 2003, 16:40
Location: England

#28

Post by Brit Fan » 08 Feb 2003, 01:06

I think that the reason why the Russians were allowed to enter Berlin before the western allies was the allies thought that because the Russians had lost so many men in their war of attrition against the regime of Hitler. Also the Russians had the means and the ways to do the job properly and that why should they take the city when they get a part of it any way. The Allies thought that why should they sacrifice their troops for the sake of the prestige of winning the city and getting all of the credit for it whats the point in them sacrificing a considerable amount of troops so they might aswell let them have it. People think that just because they lost alot of men that they deserved to have the trophy. :)

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 01:39
Location: North

Re: OLEG wrote:

#29

Post by witness » 08 Feb 2003, 01:39

Somosierra wrote:They were only thinking about how to be a better puppy of Stalin…
How do you know this ?
Or do you think that the Russian generals could not have had any patriotic motives by definition ?
Do you seriously think that the Russian patriotism was not a huge factor in this war ?
Then how come that millions of the Russians sacrificed their lives fighting the German invaders . Just to be " a better puppy of Stalin " ?
This is quite an insult..

Somosierra
Member
Posts: 281
Joined: 29 Dec 2002, 01:16
Location: POLAND

Re: OLEG wrote:

#30

Post by Somosierra » 08 Feb 2003, 13:00

witness wrote:How do you know this ?
Or do you think that the Russian generals could not have had any patriotic motives by definition ?
Do you seriously think that the Russian patriotism was not a huge factor in this war ?
Then how come that millions of the Russians sacrificed their lives fighting the German invaders . Just to be " a better puppy of Stalin " ?
This is quite an insult..
Just read my post.

I wrote about Soviet generals, not common Russians.

Do you really think that an important person in Soviet regime could be a decent man?

Don’t you know about “second line” of NKVD riflemen – their only one aim was shooting in the backs of Soviet soldiers in the first line, not to fight Germans.

Don’t you know that those millions of dead are numbers with other nationalities and many of them were killed by Stalin?

Can you admire generals who fought against themselves – just to be first in Berlin?

What for? – For Russia? I don’t think so! Just for Stalin.

Common people had no choice – two beasts: Stalin and Hitler but only one spoke Russian…

Regards.

P.S. Just look how much human life is worth in Russia, even today – there are many examples: - a sub is secret, so forget men; - there are terrorist, so forget hostages; - there in an earthquake, but japs would want our islands; and many more others, like minus 15 Celsius in flats of common people – their problem…

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”