Red Army "superiority"

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

Red Army "superiority"

#1

Post by Imad » 21 Sep 2017, 02:37

Hello

Can everyone please watch this short clip and give your opinions. Thanks in advance.

https://youtu.be/B-ZHH770WLs

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#2

Post by stg 44 » 21 Sep 2017, 16:30

Imad wrote:Hello

Can everyone please watch this short clip and give your opinions. Thanks in advance.

https://youtu.be/B-ZHH770WLs
I don't think the video does anywhere near a decent job tackling such a complex issue as relative 'superiority' of militaries on the Eastern Front. Entire books have been written to answer that question and we don't have anywhere near a consensus.
The use in the video of the 'they lost, they couldn't have been good' trope really invalidates his opinion on the subject on any number of levels.
In terms of the Soviet military superiority...it is an incredibly complex topic and difficult to really compare given that the situations of both sides were very different and the militaries of both sides changed massively over the course of the war, often as a result of things not even taking place on the Eastern Front. Rather than trying to give my opinion on the subject, which would take a LONG time to type out, suffice to say in answer to OP's question, the linked video does a poor job presenting the subject and answering the question he set out to answer.


Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#3

Post by Art » 21 Sep 2017, 16:56

I doubt that "Wehrmacht wasn't defeated on the Eastern Front" is really such widespread and popular notion. So his point looks like beating a strawman a little.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#4

Post by stg 44 » 21 Sep 2017, 17:01

Art wrote:I doubt that "Wehrmacht wasn't defeated on the Eastern Front" is really such widespread and popular notion. So his point looks like beating a strawman a little.
In the US among people with only a limited understanding of WW2 (i.e. the vast majority of people) there is the idea that the US defeated Germany, because our public discourse really only emphasizes our role in the war; so with just a 'popular' understanding of the conflict there is a lot of ignorance about the scope of the conflict in the Anglophone world. I think the creator of the video is addressing the 'low information' crowd who are just starting to get interested in the subject or have a very limited intake of sources, which tend to glorify the Germans' tactical abilities.

NBrotz
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 26 Sep 2017, 10:25
Location: United States

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#5

Post by NBrotz » 26 Sep 2017, 15:26

As with everything, there is a mix of truth and distortion. Although I don't have the statistics on hand, it seems that the Soviets engaged the larger part of the European Axis Army (factoring Germany's co-belligerents into the equation), seized the most territory, took the most prisoners, and killed the most enemy combatants. You do also have the case that the Germans hopelessly failed to deduce where the Soviets would launch their next offensive almost every time, with the result being German reserves rushing back and forth, arriving piecemeal and too late to do anything more than create a weak defensive line hundreds of miles west. That said, the Soviets had a certain strategic superiority over the Germans - in that regard, TIK is absolutely correct. Even so, the Germans still gave the Soviets a bloody nose at Wolomin/Radzymin (Aug 44), Tukkums (Aug 44), Goldap/Gumbinnen (Oct 44), Lauban (Mar 45), and Bautzen (Apr 45) - which I believe demonstrates that the Germans did carry a degree of localized tactical superiority to the bitter end.

Without a second front, a strategic bombing campaign, and Lend-Lease, one has to take into account that by 1945 the Soviets were scrapping the bottom of the barrel for new recruits, even if their armies were lavishly supplied and equipped by this stage. Without the Western Allies rolling into the rear-area of Germany's eastern army groups, I have my personal doubts that the Red Army could've finished the job on its own.

My personal bottom line, neither the Western Allies nor the Red Army can claim the lion's share of the victory, because neither one succeeded in launching a grand war-winning offensive. If Western Allies had broken through or bypassed the Siegfried Line to reach the Rhine in September 1944, or the Red Army had crossed the Vistula in August 1944 (or had they cut off the German southern wing at Rostov in 42'), this would be a very different discussion. Instead, the European Axis powers were ground down across from all sides, from the Arctic to the Mediterrean, and from the Atlantic to the Volga. Remove any ingredient of that concentric vise spoils the recipe for Allied victory.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#6

Post by Paul Lakowski » 26 Sep 2017, 20:13

NBrotz wrote:You do also have the case that the Germans hopelessly failed to deduce where the Soviets would launch their next offensive almost every time, with the result being German reserves rushing back and forth, arriving piecemeal and too late to do anything more than create a weak defensive line hundreds of miles west. That said, the Soviets had a certain strategic superiority over the Germans - in that regard, TIK is absolutely correct. Even so, the Germans still gave the Soviets a bloody nose at Wolomin/Radzymin (Aug 44), Tukkums (Aug 44), Goldap/Gumbinnen (Oct 44), Lauban (Mar 45), and Bautzen (Apr 45) - which I believe demonstrates that the Germans did carry a degree of localized tactical superiority to the bitter end.

.

It would appear the lack of steady operational reconnaissance , allowed the Red Army to make major shifts in front forcing the Wehrmacht to defend locally and theoretically every were at once. Glantz reports that Wehrmacht was days behind the Soviets deployments, while the REDS knew all Wehrmacht deployment within a day of orders. Interestingly was the reverse on Barbarossa , where the Nazi were only a day behind Soviet deployments, while the Soviets were 3 days behind the Nazi.

This shift later in the war was largely made possible because Red Air force gaining air superiority over LW. That would appear to be mostly because LW defence of Germany required so much commitment.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#7

Post by Stiltzkin » 29 Sep 2017, 02:11

There are a few simple indicators which can say something on "superiority", without starting another flame war about military studies: Mission accomplishment in general and by time, casualty infliction and quantitative effects. Multiply relative quality with quantity and you will receive a good starting point, i.e. warmaking potential defines a nations or systems total military potential while efficiency dictates tactical potency.
Basically, development level/wealth/economic power is going to play a role for the individual training and armament of each soldier. Resources, population, territory, war industry and even ideology are going to translate into "total recruitment potential". Another important factor is leadership.

The Soviet Union was capable of mobilizing 30 million people versus the 17 million of Germans in their respective sphere of power. In this regard it was far superior. It could replace armies at an enormous pace, while being able to rely on a vast territory - afterall Germany is approx. 47 times smaller than territorial Russia.

On the other hand Germany possessed greater per capita firepower and higher training institutions while being a fully developed, industrialized nation. This enabled them to have more than 6 times the casualty infliction potential vis a Soviet soldier (on average 2.5 CEV SQRT and inflicted on average 4.7 times the casualties), which is also reflected in the battle loss statistics.
Thus, the Soviet military complex was the largest of the 20th century while the German Army was the most efficient.
Looking at cummulative losses of approx. 4-5 million for the Axis vis the 22,000,000 figure of the Soviets into 44, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they are saying "it was almost the same". Here is the point: Indepedent of "Skill", leadership or other factors, the Soviet Union would have not been able to continue its offensives if not for the constant stream of manpower. It is a fact, if we specifically talk about the later stages of the war. Defending their soil is something else than reaching Berlin. Diverting Axis manpower to other fronts and increasing the Red Armies pool by regaining ground was vital to the outcome of WW2 - one can say that the additional manpower from countries like Ukraine tipped the balance of the war.

While there is a certain complexity behind these topics and there is certainly still a lot to uncover, to me at least, anyone questioning any of the above points has some kind of agenda, bias and might be politically motivated.

There are other examples in history of tactical and overall disparity. Nobody is going to say that Alexander or Hannibal might have been incompetent or that US forces did not enjoy a tactical superiority over Vietcong troops.

I see people frequently trying to disprove any of the facts, historiography is keen on morale, "the bad guys just cannot be better! Defenders of Nazism!". That is just plain silly and quite frankly I find it tiresome. Academia just has to reject such a position. It also has further problems of talking about crimes, judging by the whitewashing attempts found in literature and on certain places on the net, not to mention about "right wingers" in our country who are gradually gaining more popularity. It is a disturbing development and ironically their support is coming financially, from the Kremlin.

Even Diplomacy and Alliances can play a role in the outcome of Wars so I think the creator of this Video kind of failed what he wanted to assess. If his attempt was merely to show that the total strength of the Soviet Army was superior then he would be correct, but if he wants to demonstrate that the Soviet Army was able to fight the Axis powers on equal terms or that is possessed their efficiency, then he would be in the wrong.

He also fails on the point of "vastly outnumbered" because he does not take into consideration that in a battle of attrition it is important how many men can be fed into battle. A numerical superiority in the range of 2.4-3 globally (or 1.5-2.5 in the operations) which the Red Army regularly enjoyed will even translate into a greater superiority on lower levels.
I have seen many Internet posters and especially Russian intellectuals trying to diminish the "gap" between Wehrmacht and Red Army (or Dr Pennington in war on the rocks) and lower the numerical superiority ratio with every decade. There are whole books rewritten in the Federation, movies and entertainment software created to brainwash their youth into believing their armed forces performed the best in all possible aspects (there was a good Radiointerview of a Professor from Potsdam who was in Russia and gave insight on these issues, another good article was in an old DER SPIEGEL magazine speaking about the political influence on their perception of WW2, in which any foreign help is diminished).
If you compare the number of KIA of Axis allies, their number pales to the figure of German fallen (the Rumanians have approx. 70,000 KIA vs the Soviet Union, the largest contribution of any ally, while the Germans have 900,000 in the same period) and certainly those of the Soviet allied. To me it is farily obvious that the war was decided mostly by demographics.

What I generally dislike is when old "bunk" is replaced with new bunk.

Here is one thing: There are too many wannabe expert Youtubers.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#8

Post by stg 44 » 29 Sep 2017, 05:05

Stiltzkin wrote: Looking at cummulative losses of approx. 4-5 million for the Axis vis the 22,000,000 figure of the Soviets into 44, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they are saying "it was almost the same".
If you're going to be fair, you have to acknowledge that a huge part of the cumulative casualties came from Germany sucker-punching the USSR in 1941 and overrunning a major portion of the population, agriculture, industry, and raw material base, which put the USSR in a major hole for most of the rest of the war. Sure, Germany had it's own handicaps in fighting the war and the Soviets help from outside, but 1941 gave Germany a vast advantage going forward because of the Soviets being deprived of so much industry, population, resources, and their pre-war army. It became an attritional war of demographics on the Soviet side because they had experienced the equivalent of a nuclear first strike on their country and military and they spent most of the war trying to recover, taking years after the war to get anywhere close to their pre-war population, industry, and raw material production.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#9

Post by Stiltzkin » 29 Sep 2017, 06:26

If you're going to be fair, you have to acknowledge that a huge part of the cumulative casualties came from Germany sucker-punching the USS
The Soviets were perfectly prepared for a long time war. You do not "sucker punch" a dictatorship that permanently runs on a war economy fashion, with the best espionage network in the world.
The French were hit in a similar way and traded much better with the Wehrmacht, even Poles traded better.

At the later stages of the war, Germany was losing vital territories to its war economy, with their forces being a former shadow of themselves, yet they still inflicted heavy casualties on the RKKA. According to your theory, they would have a far more favourable exchange rate at the end of the war in relation to the opposing men on the field, this was barely the case, it was rather consistent.

Ironically he is posting David Glantz and Liedtke's "Enduring the Whirlwind" as a source. While Glantz can be considered a Soviet fanboy, I cannot see how he ever stated that the Red Army was tactically superior.
The only feasible thing to mention (also in regard to Liedtke), is that German strength peaked in June 1941 and Summer 1943, which was achieved by actions such as waiting for new age groups, cutting LW personnel to ground Divisions, reinforcing a few formations with Axis Allied troops (and a few Hiwis here and there) and more importantly, dragging about 8 million foreign workers from the occupied territories into the industry, in order to free potential labour force and thus soldiers for the fight.
The German strength inevitably diminished and collapsed after the major operations from 43-44, while the inflow of manpower dispersed (although the total figure "rose", which means nothing for the actual combat capabilities, available for all fronts) and the contributions of their allies diminished.
The most important thing here to point out however is the relative build up of the opposing forces in relation to Axis replacements. To state that "Germany had the manpower", well to "stop and win the 3rd Kharkov", yes obviously. Without these replacements they would have lost this war much sooner, but then we would be hardly speaking about a war of attrition and yes the Soviets were also occasionally hard pressed to find the replacements they needed.

One of the most important factors were probably morale and cultural spheres. Not combat morale, but ethics involved and ideology. Germanies racist ideology prohibited them to tear Ukraine and Belorussia out of Moscow's sphere of power (or conscript large formations of French and Polish units, they would not be able to make effective soldiers out of them).

The German Army actually enjoyed a numerical advantage over Poland, the Benelux states and technically annected Norway before it could even fully mobilize. The reason for the Soviet early defeats were the tactical proficiency (or simply the difference in development levels which is obviously politcally incorrect to state, because obviously the ratio was similar to WW1) of the Wehrmacht, the difference being, no: Overextension, depletion, exhaustion or the enemy far exceeding equilibrium. Before the last quarter of 1941 the Wehrmacht could impose such an attrition rate on the Soviets that they could not build up their forces to necessary levels and not because they were "unprepared" or somehow "startled". The only thing that startled them were the heavy casualties (very similar to the Winter War, but this time they were achieved in the attack/defense and maneuver over unfavourable terrain).
We are talking about a military dictatorship which conducted many maneuvers pre war, attacked Poland on the Eastern flank, attacked Finland and captured substantial territories, greater than those the Nazis occupied after 1940. Their production of war assets pre 1941 was enormous and the number of total AFVs being around 20,000 says something about their "true" numerical strength (only part of those will fall on reserves and additional total stock). If you subtract all those figures, you will come much closer to the actual size of their forces (or it rather explains the number of the 1941 losses + the additional units which appear near Moscow), or do you believe that currently, China and Russia are revealing their exact numbers of military personnel? Those are estimates and greatly underestimated too. Russia today, has 20,000 tanks again, this number can be fairly accurate. Why? Because they love tanks. They even have a tank biathlon going each year. They are 1: A land force. 2. Prepared for long wars of attrition, 3. obviously they factored in potential heavy losses 4. they have a tank fetish.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#10

Post by ljadw » 29 Sep 2017, 08:09

The number of 20000 tanks is irrelevant, as only a small part of them were in the western military districts and were operational . 20000 tanks does not indicate a numerical strength . Some Soviet tank divisions had no tanks .

The SU was not prepared for an offensive war in june 1941 and was surprised by the German attack .

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#11

Post by Art » 29 Sep 2017, 15:04

ljadw wrote:The number of 20000 tanks is irrelevant, as only a small part of them were in the western military districts and were operational .
That is simply not true.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

double post

#12

Post by Paul Lakowski » 29 Sep 2017, 19:09

double post, sorry :oops:
Last edited by Paul Lakowski on 29 Sep 2017, 19:16, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#13

Post by Paul Lakowski » 29 Sep 2017, 19:14

ljadw wrote:The number of 20000 tanks is irrelevant, as only a small part of them were in the western military districts and were operational . 20000 tanks does not indicate a numerical strength . Some Soviet tank divisions had no tanks .

The SU was not prepared for an offensive war in june 1941 and was surprised by the German attack .


Some Wehrmacht Panzer divisions had no tanks because they were being created, while most were below TOE , so they had to rewrite the TOE to gloss over this.....it also might be true to say they had assessed the impact of France 1940, and concluded they could probably get by any way. The same might be true about the German infantry divisions had fewer vehicles than the previous year vs France.


I wish this forum had a like-dislike button since I think "Stiltzkin" is good work and thanks for posting it!

I too am worried about the revisionist history that is sweeping our history boards these days. I have concluded that since the Cold War is over, revisionist history can minimise European components of this war to maximise superpower contributions....for public consumption.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#14

Post by ljadw » 29 Sep 2017, 19:55

Paul Lakowski wrote:
ljadw wrote:The number of 20000 tanks is irrelevant, as only a small part of them were in the western military districts and were operational . 20000 tanks does not indicate a numerical strength . Some Soviet tank divisions had no tanks .

The SU was not prepared for an offensive war in june 1941 and was surprised by the German attack .


Some Wehrmacht Panzer divisions had no tanks because they were being created, while most were below TOE , so they had to rewrite the TOE to gloss over this.....it also might be true to say they had assessed the impact of France 1940, and concluded they could probably get by any way. The same might be true about the German infantry divisions had fewer vehicles than the previous year vs France.


I wish this forum had a like-dislike button since I think "Stiltzkin" is good work and thanks for posting it!

I too am worried about the revisionist history that is sweeping our history boards these days. I have concluded that since the Cold War is over, revisionist history can minimise European components of this war to maximise superpower contributions....for public consumption.
20th Mechanized corps consisted of 2 tank and one motorized division and had 93 tanks. :roll:

6th Mechanized corps had 1021 tanks (much too much)

In june 1941 the German PzD had on the average each 200 tanks and were not weaker than one year before .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Red Army "superiority"

#15

Post by ljadw » 29 Sep 2017, 20:14

About the tanks of the Western Military District :

Heavy : 97 , operational 9, the others were still arriving

Medium :291 : 19 operational

Light : 2394, 1601 operational

For the aircraft :

Bombers :489, 441 operational, but there were only 485 crews for 489 bombers,and, if one count 6 men for one bomber....

Fighters : 1043,906 operational, but only 626 pilots ...

There were also 8 IL-2 but NO crew ....,20 Yak 1, no crew .......

It was the same for artillery, trucks,....Crew without trucks, trucks without crew and mechanics, shortage of fuel, ammunition, spare parts,...

Nothing was ready (a peace army is not ready for war) resulting in whole corps who fell apart BEFORE having seen a German, before having fired a shot .

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”