I will only ctrl c ctrl v from the us army now all words are from the us army none are mine Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies, http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge"-which is false in both cases! Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by the "inferior" Russians. This paper will not discuss either of those ill-fated campaigns in detail. However, in regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoleon's Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 strong, diminished by half during the first eight weeks of his invasion before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor actions caused thousands of losses. At Borodino on 7 September 1812 - the only major engagement fought in Russia-Napoleon could muster no more than 135,000 troops, and he lost at least 30,000 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month and the first snow on 5 November. Ok my words All swedish schools are free Sweden has the highest tax system in the world I have not studied history but i have read the books I recommend you talking with the British Univercities
(MaxPower @ Oct 19 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=40241]And these witnesses did they see the whole picture? And if the Soviets were sending in mass tactis as you so say then why did they losse less men then the Germans after jan 1 1942? [/b] images/smilies/default/huh.gif I'm not really sure if you are correct on this, Max. Just take the numbers of battle of Kursk or Berlin operation. Average soviet losses were higher in men and equipment. Maybe if we count the number of German POWs after capitulation… But it doesn’t make sense. Soviets had even some problems with replacements during the last months of war. http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80soj.htm
(MaxPower @ Oct 19 2005, 05:53 PM) [post=40241]And these witnesses did they see the whole picture? Did they know everything Or were they just 2 grunts? [/b] laufer makes a very valid point that does bring into question your assertion that the Soviets didn't have greater casualties. But I would also question your suggestion that 'the man at the front' wouldn't know what was going on and could endure such an attack and not know what it was. The soldiers at the front may have had a very limited strategic view of what was going on, but on a tactical level, that is the types of low level tactics they are employing and the tactics used against them, they would have a very good picture of what was going on. They were by definition of being at the front actually involved in them. I'm sure that any 'grunt' would have a much better idea of tactics once the rounds are flying than any professor, and to say that just because a witness was an infantry soldier doesn't mean that he could confuse a normal 'advance to contact' followed by an 'assault' with a human wave attack. I would only add that once again, you assumed the status, experience and even the alcoholic content of witnesses because they contradicted your opinion while including reports on the coflict in Manchuria because you think they seem to support it. You are proving yourself to be a very 'subjective' academic.
I thinky ou read evry other word i say first This is copyed from the USA ARMY The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge"-which is false in both cases! Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by the "inferior" Russians. This paper will not discuss either of those ill-fated campaigns in detail. However, in regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoleon's Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 strong, diminished by half during the first eight weeks of his invasion before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor actions caused thousands of losses. At Borodino on 7 September 1812 - the only major engagement fought in Russia-Napoleon could muster no more than 135,000 troops, and he lost at least 30,000 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month6 and the first snow on 5 November. Second i say that in the paper that adresses Manchuria the guy says this Also copied Our view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their "glorious" experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost. All from the Us army i just copied it go read for yourself http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp
I think you read half the words i say Ok This is copied from the USA ARMY The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge"-which is false in both cases! Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by the "inferior" Russians. This paper will not discuss either of those ill-fated campaigns in detail. However, in regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoleon's Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 strong, diminished by half during the first eight weeks of his invasion before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor actions caused thousands of losses. At Borodino on 7 September 1812 - the only major engagement fought in Russia-Napoleon could muster no more than 135,000 troops, and he lost at least 30,000 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month and the first snow on 5 November Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter." [My italics.] Now from the Manchurian paper the guy also refers to the war with the germans Copied from USA ARMY Our view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their "glorious" experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost This imbalanced view of German operations in the east imparts a reassuring, though inaccurate, image of the Soviets. We have gazed in awe at the exploits of those Germans who later wrote their personal apologies, and in doing so we have forgotten the larger truth: their nation lost the war-and lost it primarily in the east against what they portrayed as the "artless" Soviets. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp As you can see you are wrong about Napoleon acording to the US army now if you are wrong with that then you could be wrong about other things, right? Everything is copied except these words :I think you read half the words i say Ok This is copied from the USA ARMY Now from the Manchurian paper the guy also refers to the war with the germans Copied from USA ARMY As you can see you are wrong about Napoleon acording to the US army now if you are wrong with that then you could be wrong about other things, right? Everything except those and these words in this sentance are directly copied from the USA ARMY
Is DengXiaoPing MaxPower? If so why the change of name? You make the very same unarticulated points. You are quoting papers from the CSI (Combat Studies Institute) and the CARL (Combined Arms Research Library) as fact and US policy. They are research papers, papers writen by researchers and officers studying in the Staff Collage on how they interpret past battles and conflicts. Not how the US Army see things. If you use them for what they are intended, as papers to forward opinion and qusetions then I cannot argue with some of the points they make, but to quote them as how the US view past events, then I'm sorry, you are using them out of context.
Yes i hade to change name because something was buged with the other one Ok so you cant argue great images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif But just because they are research papers dont make them wrong It it is highly unlikely that the Us army would disagree with those papers but who knows Also i do belive they are correct. As long as you dont say against them i am happy images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 01:37 PM) [post=40299]Yes i hade to change name because something was buged with the other one Ok so you cant argue great images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif But just because they are research papers dont make them wrong It it is highly unlikely that the Us army would disagree with those papers but who knows Also i do belive they are correct. As long as you dont say against them i am happy images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif [/b] Facts in the papers are unlikley to be incorrect, however the conclusions drawn from the facts may not be correct. As I said, they are research papers and as such are just the forwarding of peoples ideas and opinions. That said, none of the papers you forwarded deny the use of human wave tactics, or even back up any of your arguments very well. So if it wasn't for the fact that you have become much more civil in your postings, we would seem to be back at square one and have to agree to have different opinions on the matter.
First You see that you were wrong about napoloen right Now if you could be wrong about Napoloen then you could be wrong about other things right? So we are not back to square one you were wrong about Napoleon Second Human waves Our view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their "glorious" experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost. Now this paragraf does not clearly say there were no waves but it does point out that people down play The Soviet role This imbalanced view of German operations in the east imparts a reassuring, though inaccurate, image of the Soviets. We have gazed in awe at the exploits of those Germans who later wrote their personal apologies, and in doing so we have forgotten the larger truth: their nation lost the war-and lost it primarily in the east against what they portrayed as the "artless" Soviets. Now that setnace also not directly saying no human waves also points to the direction of people underestimating the Soviets Our neglect of Soviet operations in World War 11, in general-and in Manchuria, in particular-testifies not only to our apathy toward history and the past in general, but also to our particular blindness to the Soviet experience. That blindness, born of the biases we bring to the study of World War 11, is a dangerous phenomenon. How can we learn if we refuse to see the lessons of our past for our future? Also this setnace clearly implies that people like your self refuse to understand how the Soviets performed Ok time for some copying of text from this page http://www.battlefront.com/products/books/...armorintro.html The traditional view of the Soviet armor is huge masses of tanks blundering about the battlefield in columns of bunches or herd-like formations until they either roll over the opposition by sheer weight of metal or are shot up by smaller, expertly manoeuvring westerners. Ideally this volume will dispel some of that misconception by laying out the official basis for the real Soviet tank and armoured vehicle tactics as practiced for most of world war two. Also take from the same page Recent research on the Red Army in the 1930s (Reese: see bibliography) using the "Red Army Archives" of the pre-war Soviet military, reveal that the purge was not as significant as first thought: instead of removing 30.000+ officers out of 70-80,000, the purge removed about 24,000 out of an officer corps which, by 1938, numbered 179,000 - a much smaller percentage than once thought. The real problem, especially for the technical arms of the Soviet Army, was that the purge was removing primarily staff-level officers: senior lieutenants, captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels, at the same time that the Red Army was increasing in size by 500 in 5 years. The army on 1 January 1938, which had 179,000 officers, had increased from 144,000 officers a year earlier, while losing 18,658 to the purge and other causes. By 1 January 1941 the Red Army had over 5,000,000 men and three times the number of divisions and corps it had had in 1939. Has nothing to do with the waves but shows that the purges didnt mean as much as the growing Do please read this page http://www.battlefront.com/products/books/...armorintro.html This is from the commentary of the translation of the Soviet tank field manual which can be bought at the same page It aint so much text but it has nice info and alsoyou can buy the books images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
Please note this is a friendly discussion forum and there are user guidelines which you have agreed to abide by when joining. See here for further details: http://www.ww2talk.com/index.php?act=boardrules Please bear that in mind when typing future responses to those who disagree with your agruments. Insult is not discussion.
O.K., I THINK IT'S TIME TO FINISH THE DISCUSSION. The Most Defining Battles Of Ww2 Took Place At Moscow, Kursk And Stalingrad. Moreover, The Biggest Part Of Nazi Germany Military Forces Was Destroyed By Russians On The Eastern Front, WITH LEND-LEASE OR NOT THEY WOULD WIN THE WAR ANYWAY, just because of being skilled, unlike USA, at fighting against strong enemy whether it's Hitler or Napoleon. Besides, if not for russians, there would be no democracy [corporocracy] whatsoever. As for Stalin's dictatorship: only person like him was capable at the moment of overcoming such person as Hitler. But why did USA meddle at last? As always, they decided to vulture on those who weak [europe in that case], and Americans are resposible for being a nation of cowards/johnnies-come-lately, and finally the'll pay for that.
Hey closet creeper, This thread was last posted October 20, 2005. What's with you newbies. Like the dust. How about starting your own thread? O.K., I THINK IT'S TIME TO FINISH THE DISCUSSION. The Most Defining Battles Of Ww2 Took Place At Moscow, Kursk And Stalingrad. Moreover, The Biggest Part Of Nazi Germany Military Forces Was Destroyed By Russians On The Eastern Front, WITH LEND-LEASE OR NOT THEY WOULD WIN THE WAR ANYWAY, just because of being skilled, unlike USA, at fighting against strong enemy whether it's Hitler or Napoleon. Besides, if not for russians, there would be no democracy [corporocracy] whatsoever. As for Stalin's dictatorship: only person like him was capable at the moment of overcoming such person as Hitler. But why did USA meddle at last? As always, they decided to vulture on those who weak [europe in that case], and Americans are resposible for being a nation of cowards/johnnies-come-lately, and finally the'll pay for that. Loose something recently, like your mind, You make an excellent case for Curtis Lemay.
O.K., I THINK IT'S TIME TO FINISH THE DISCUSSION. The Most Defining Battles Of Ww2 Took Place At Moscow, Kursk And Stalingrad. Moreover, The Biggest Part Of Nazi Germany Military Forces Was Destroyed By Russians On The Eastern Front, WITH LEND-LEASE OR NOT THEY WOULD WIN THE WAR ANYWAY, just because of being skilled, unlike USA, at fighting against strong enemy whether it's Hitler or Napoleon. Besides, if not for russians, there would be no democracy [corporocracy] whatsoever. As for Stalin's dictatorship: only person like him was capable at the moment of overcoming such person as Hitler. But why did USA meddle at last? As always, they decided to vulture on those who weak [europe in that case], and Americans are resposible for being a nation of cowards/johnnies-come-lately, and finally the'll pay for that. If we dismantled your "Cut & Paste" you would have nothing to say. :icon_sleepy:
If we dismantled your "Cut & Paste" you would have nothing to say. :icon_sleepy: Geoff, were you refering to me?
Thanks, had me worried, fighting a battle on another thread and all takes alot out of you. I'll let Curtis take over for me here.
russia's role in ww2 is not just downplayed, it's silenced. if not for russia, the whole world would have to live under fascist authority. so, how comes the west is so ungrateful? narrowmindness.
russia's role in ww2 is not just downplayed, it's silenced. if not for russia, the whole world would have to live under fascist authority. so, how comes the west is so ungrateful? narrowmindness. Why bother, 'Stalin' doesn't seem to have a clue what he's going on about. The soviets made a contribution. But that was after trying to remain in a pact with the Germans for as long as possible and in order to share Poland. So after such actions, they deserve nothing but credit? There was as much represion in eastern europe after the was as there was in Germany during it. What a role model to hold up as the right way to do things? I think not.
russia's role in ww2 is not just downplayed, it's silenced. if not for russia, the whole world would have to live under fascist authority. so, how comes the west is so ungrateful? narrowmindness. Come on Stalin. You have made a statement (another one liner) yet you don't have the ability to back it up with fact. Come on, who wrote the one liners for you to post to the forum. You are not able to support anything that you have said. Yuri Gagarin is self explanatory, so please don't go there.
