As an Eastern Front novice, I'll get this going again by asking what exactly did the Soviet Army do to transform itself after their dire performance early in the campaign? New thread started from "CALM discussion of Eastern Front." Time for fresh start.
As an Eastern Front novice, I'll get this going again by asking what exactly did the Soviet Army do to transform itself after their dire performance early in the campaign? Surely it was a continuing case of retreat to stretch the German supply lines. "Come into my web"!
Surely it was a continuing case of retreat to stretch the German supply lines. "Come into my web"! Can't see that myself spidge. Would have thought it was more to do with re-training, re-arming and finding Generals who could fight and win. Quite difficult to do after the purges of the officer Corps.
Can't see that myself spidge. Would have thought it was more to do with re-training, re-arming and finding Generals who could fight and win. Quite difficult to do after the purges of the officer Corps. Being a novice as well, I'd be interested in this. But I can't believe that the retreat of the Societ army in the early parts of the war were a deliberate act - I think Stalin didn't have enough control to make that a strategic act. The overstretched supply lines seem to have been a majot cockup - a result of poor planning and the fact that the invasion started a month or two later than planned. With the purges, Stalin seemed to have been lucky to find a few generals who had the foresight to plan a counter -attack (and with Stalin in near panic when the Germans arrived on the outskirts of Moscow, this was probably the only time when he allowed the generals to make any decisions without interfering too much).
Can't see that myself spidge. Would have thought it was more to do with re-training, re-arming and finding Generals who could fight and win. Quite difficult to do after the purges of the officer Corps. All of those things are true. Stalin drew his north, south line in the sand (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad) and he had his share of luck by being able to support his armies by that time. By defending this line, he was also allowed to build and rearm his reserve forces. Moving his manufacturing industry to Siberia early in the invasion assured unrestricted continuity of supply out of the reach of german bombers. Murmansk and Archangel were defended by the siege of Leningrad and remained a life line of Lend Lease product along that north - south line. Berlin to Leningrad is 1500kms, Moscow 1600kms & 2200kms to Stalingrad. These distances posed great difficulties to germany when winter came.
I always think Stalin was far from stupid. After his foolish (yet sort of understandable) ordering of the unprepared, unsuccesful and largely wasteful counteroffensives he, unlike Hitler, began to listen to his Generals & centralised production planners. I've read of him being an 'Excellent chairman' no doubt enhanced by the abject terror he could inspire but on the whole his orders were general rather than specific, he was eventually prepared to allow for some level of expertise amongst subordinates who could then handle the details as they saw fit (of course under the eye of the NKVD, full autonomy was an impossibility). Strange thing but I suspect most other non-totalitarian states would have simply collapsed under the German assault, the terrifying orders to Soldiers & Civillians surely helped to stiffen resolve, terrified of the Nazi's they may have been but not nearly as terrified as they were of Uncle Jo. This would tend to help when scrabbling to rebuild a force that could beat Germany. The Red monarch could also understand his own errors (a very different thing to admitting them) I seem to recall many officers were retrieved from 'the gulags' and rehabilitated back to positions where their skills would be most useful, certainly there were very senior armoured force officers & thinkers bought back but I'd have to check their names. None of this fully made up for the knowledge and experience gained in the pre-war exercises and then lost in the purges but does begin to go some way to explaining how they managed to reform the Red Army.
Just as a quick support of VP's post, Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky was one of the most well known of those repatriated. He was always looking over his shoulder for most of the war and was replaced by Zhukov for the final push for Berlin. He was relegated to the Northern Flank of the Russian Attack.
Surely it was a continuing case of retreat to stretch the German supply lines. "Come into my web"! Considering that doctrine was that any violation of the borders was to be met by an immediate counter-offensive to take the war into the enemy territory, this seems somewhat contradictory, doesn't it? As for the rest I generally agree with what von Poop and Gotthard have been saying.
Just reading today about revival of Soviet armoured units in 1942 under their new chief General Fedyunenko. They were formed into tank armies made up of tank and mechanised corps-a tank corps consisiting of two armoured and one mechanised division, a mechanised corps being two mech and one armoured corps.Each corps being equal in strength to a British/US/German division. The Tank Corps were intended to break the enemy from en-masse with the Mechanised Corps to exploit the breakthrough to a depth of 25 to 30 miles in self-contained operations of 72 to 96 hours.
Considering that doctrine was that any violation of the borders was to be met by an immediate counter-offensive to take the war into the enemy territory, this seems somewhat contradictory, doesn't it? As for the rest I generally agree with what von Poop and Gotthard have been saying. Compared to most here I consider myself a complete amateur on the Eastern Front. My comments are inspired totally by hindsight. Counter offensives did occur in line with that doctrine however the Germans initially were much stronger, better equipped, better trained, and a more professional army. My interpretation of the Soviet counter offensive tactics initially, was to show the Germans that they would fight tooth and nail for their land, however they had to have had a plan/line of defence strategy that supported these tactics should they not be successful. Do you feel that this interpretation is a simplistic or totally incorrect evaluation of what occurred?
I have to agree that winter weather initially halted the German army. This gave Russia time to regroup and resupply itself. Over-stretched supply lines kept Germany from finishing the job in 1942, and then it was just a matter of Russia outproducing Germany in equipment and men.
Initially the Red Army was paralysed by their Leader’s inability to believe an invasion was taking place. Following that it was an attempt to hold line after line which the Germans kept bypassing. The one thing that was in the Russians favour was that, once surrounded, they weren’t giving up the way the French did in 1940. The Russian pockets kept fighting and the German Infantry were forced to wear down the pockets. The Germans Losses were close to 1 million men in 1941 in the East so although they made huge gains, it was still at some cost. This of course pales into insignificance with the losses the Red Army suffered but it also explains why the Germans staggered towards Moscow rather than marched. The Russians did launch or attempt to launch some counteroffensives in 1941 but these were not really of use and anyway the Germans movement tended to obscure them. To the casual observer it seemed that the Russians did not launch any offensive actions in 1941 but I’ll try to dig up some info on this for us all to peruse.
i think it was just lucky for them that they had such a bad winter and that Germany over-streached I thank you from the whole 20 milion people who died defending the motherland for defing them that way may those heroes rest in peace. Theres no such a thing as luck there is a thing like secrafice,breavery, any east Europen loves his coutry any one around here is ready to die for the motherland we prove it to ourself and we dont want to prove it to you.In the history there is no such an army as the Russian.I know a lot of Russians they are loyal to there motherland as a dog is loyal to its owner.They are proud that they beat the stronger well organized german army.Internet and movies cant show you the breavery the courige of the Russian army shown in the ww2. I just cant balive it i dont know what the russians should have done to win the admiration of western coutrys but why sould they it was better for me not even to post when we here in EastEuropen see such a posts we just smile and stay awey of such a discusion. You got luck that there arent a lot of russians in this forum or they would take big offence so please take control of such saying winter killed a lot of russian soldiers too dont forget that they doesnt have food, good shoes worm uniform russinas arent animles anyone get cold at -40 C Its far more better to leave the eastern front your better at the western.
Dani This is the reason why threads like this are REALLY necessary. There is a huge knowledge gap on these forums about the war in the East and in order to redress the balance we need to talk about it and often. And that is why you are so valuable here. Please understand that it is a lack of knowledge that causes statements like "The Winter stopped the Germans" to be said. What you may not realise is that after the war, the only accounts of the war in the East were from German Sources, which were extremely biased. Coupled with the fact that Russia and the West were engaged in a Cold War for 40 years and you can begin to see why the West has certain views about the war in the East. You've been on this board for a while and you know that most of us are very respectful of each other, and we take everyone's opinions seriously. Which is why we need people like you to answer and to change people's ideas about the war in the East So use this as an opening to put across the view as you see it and lets have good discussion dani!!!
Dani This is the reason why threads like this are REALLY necessary. There is a huge knowledge gap on these forums about the war in the East and in order to redress the balance we need to talk about it and often. And that is why you are so valuable here. Please understand that it is a lack of knowledge that causes statements like "The Winter stopped the Germans" to be said. What you may not realise is that after the war, the only accounts of the war in the East were from German Sources, which were extremely biased. Coupled with the fact that Russia and the West were engaged in a Cold War for 40 years and you can begin to see why the West has certain views about the war in the East. You've been on this board for a while and you know that most of us are very respectful of each other, and we take everyone's opinions seriously. Which is why we need people like you to answer and to change people's ideas about the war in the East So use this as an opening to put across the view as you see it and lets have good discussion dani!!! Ok Just want to reamind you that the Cold war had end befor years and Soviet Union is dead so cold war dont have nothing to do with ww2.It was normal Soviet Union and America to be in a conflict 40 years this is because they are two of the most powerfull coutrys in the world.I was 20years old when we hear "the bad news" the end of the Soviet Union.We were blind by the idea of the brotherhood.I like it when we was in the Union but this is because Bulgaria was the favorit coutry of Soviet Union so they send us anything we were in great shape and now i see that we cant work alone so we are in bad condition. But on the topic most of the people here watched movies like "Enemy at the gates" and what do they seen there? They seen how the russian army are made to attack and dont step backwards.Yes this was a tactic used by the Russians but im sure that in this movie the things are a bit unreal so this make the people thing so. What we see in the movie like "Stalingrad" we see the bad winter and the almost dead germans.Russians were freezing too but in the movie they were almost naked
So back to the theme, how did the Red Army manage to regroup/rebuild after the horrendous losses endured in the first part of their war? We've got Stalin's eventual pragmatism, some controversy over the 'General Winter' theory (which I've never fully subscribed to, a factor, not a cause). Sheer geographical size.... any more? How about the relocation of Industrial production? One of the most remarkable events of the war and surely a primary factor in the regeneration of the Red Army? Oh yeah, and lend-lease of course......
I'm interested in how the Red Army's tactics changed. I've mentioned the formation of Tank and Mech Corps. What about the infantry? What new tactics did they learn? Artillery too, masses of it!!! Or is the amount of Artillery the Red Army had over-stated as many German Veterans of both Eastern and 1944-45 Western Fronts often state that the British Artillery concentrations were worse than back East.
