Stereotypes About The Red Army And Russia

Discussion in 'The Eastern Front' started by Gerard, Sep 15, 2005.

  1. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    As mentioned by me in other posts, Ericksons 2 volume colossus Te Road to Stalingrad and The Road to Berlin are also extremely important works that no serious student of the Ostfront/Great Patriotic war can afford to ignore.
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Just pottered onto this thread. Some Really good stuff on Lend-lease and misperceptions of the Eastern war on here.

    nb.
    Had a proper look... that lend-lease site really is a blinder!
     
  3. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Just pottered onto this thread. Some Really good stuff on Lend-lease and misperceptions of the Eastern war on here.

    nb.
    Had a proper look... that lend-lease site really is a blinder!

    They are some numbers and a half, aren't they.

    The remarks by some that Lend Lease was not instrumentally of assistance and major importance to the Soviets amazes me at times.
     
  4. stalin

    stalin Guest

    The (american) tanks sucked big time!
    No Soviet solider ever wanted to use the 6 man coffin (name of the americans tanks) because they were many times inferior to the Soviet ones

    that's right. land-lease tanks, planes and other weapons were crap.
     
  5. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    that's right. land-lease tanks, planes and other weapons were crap.

    Do videnja!
     
  6. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    that's right. land-lease tanks, planes and other weapons were crap.

    Shock jock there, me thinks. Would you care to give a more detailed explanation of why you think the lend lease equipment is- to use your word - crap?
     
  7. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    David Glantz, in his paper American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II puts forth the theory that the following sterotypes prevailed about the Red Army and the Eastern Front. Do you agree and also do you think some of these still exist?

    Here is the link to the whole article: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/e-front.htm

    Here is a part of the paper dealing with the stereotypes. I'd be interested to read what people think:



    The dominant role of German source materials in shaping American perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth and reality. In summary, a few of these judgments are as follows:

    - Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims.

    - Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or overwhelming numerical superiority.

    - Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses.

    - Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal.

    - Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and unimaginative.

    - Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible.

    - The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along straight axes.

    - Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured.

    - Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back. legend).

    - The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship, fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty.

    Totally agree but would add that Russian success in the field changed for the better after Stalin's generals convinced him that "holding steadfast or no retreat"usually resulted in encirlcement and elimination of a battle unit.

    Hitler never flinched from this demand on the Wehrmacht and in my view relaxed this demand only once when he allowed withdrawal from the ill fated Mortain counter attack which led to the closing of the Falaise Pocket and the defeat of the Germans in Normandy.History records Hitler has being the best general the Allies ever had.

    One of the most important Lend Lease equipments to Russia has to be The General Motors 24 ton truck which carried the Red Army and its supplies from Stalingrad to Berlin whilst the Wehrmacht had to depend more and more on inadequate motorised transport and more and more on horse drawn transport.
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    One of the most important Lend Lease equipments to Russia has to be The General Motors 24 ton truck which carried the Red Army and its supplies from Stalingrad to Berlin whilst the Wehrmacht had to depend more and more on inadequate motorised transport and more and more on horse drawn transport.
    Yes mate!
    Though they weren't so keen on most of the 'A' vehicles they were sent and would try to eventually replace them with T34's at the first opportunity you've only got to look at the background of pictures of Soviet troops to see the significance of Ford, Dodge, etc. 2&1/4's in moving the Army and it's supplies about. Look at Katushya Launchers and they're often mounted on American trucks, Many of these vehicles served the SU well into the cold war.
     
  9. Panzerfaust

    Panzerfaust Senior Member

    There a bunch of uncivilized communist ruskie bandits!

    There, that's a red army stereotype!
     
  10. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    There a bunch of uncivilized communist ruskie bandits!

    There, that's a red army stereotype!
    :lol:
     
  11. stalin

    stalin Guest

    Though they weren't so keen on most of the 'A' vehicles they were sent and would try to eventually replace them with T34's at the first opportunity you've only got to look at the background of pictures of Soviet troops to see the significance of Ford, Dodge, etc. 2&1/4's in moving the Army and it's supplies about. Look at Katushya Launchers and they're often mounted on American trucks, Many of these vehicles served the SU well into the cold war.
    in fact, russian army was transported by railroad trains. trucks were of no significance, cant you see.
     
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    in fact, russian army was transported by railroad trains. trucks were of no significance, cant you see.
    Trucks were of NO significance???? Now I can definitely see you haven't nearly enough reading to back up your rambling. Have you read any personal accounts by Red Army soldiers? Do you have any idea of the state of the railways? Do you think that one single solitary Army in the entire 6 year conflict was able to really rely on the railway system for it's transport needs? Especially an Army that was pushing towards and through a shattered Germany that was destroying Rail links as it retreated (those that weren't being destroyed anyway from air attack). Railways get troops and supplies near to the front. After that their tactical significance is virtually nil.
     
  13. stalin

    stalin Guest

    broken railway is easily restored, you know. but whereas single soldiers like to drive trucks for personal comfort, army is transported by railroad.
     
  14. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    broken railway is easily restored, you know. but whereas single soldiers like to drive trucks for personal comfort, army is transported by railroad.

    Even today you'll see that the rail network can't get an army near enough to the objective to get the job done. If you don't have enough trucks you have the problem of 'ferrying' the troops and supplies to the area they are required in the limited vehicled you do have or picking everything up and walking with it. Both inflict severe planning delays and restrict tactical flexibility.

    As for railways being repaired in quick order? That may be the case for small repairs, or even large repairs on a limited scale, but for the sort of scale you are looking at in the Soviet Union at the time? Major problem and it would be quicker to walk than repair rail in order to advance an army.

    With your level of Logistic and Engineering expertise Stalin, I can only say that I'm so glad you aren't in the British Army. :mellow:
     
  15. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    broken railway is easily restored, you know. but whereas single soldiers like to drive trucks for personal comfort, army is transported by railroad.

    I think you'll find that married soldiers like to be comfortable too, but that aside, road transport in forward logistic areas is much more practical than rail, which may be more practical for Strategic Supply.
     
  16. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    in fact, russian army was transported by railroad trains. trucks were of no significance, cant you see.

    Who do you think supplied much of the rail that the lovely trains ran on!

    The americans that you love to death!

    You are so far behind boy they could not shoot you with a gun.
     
  17. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    broken railway is easily restored, you know. but whereas single soldiers like to drive trucks for personal comfort, army is transported by railroad.

    You are a fool!

    What do you see when you look in the mirror? A Woos just like your Uncle Joey!
     
  18. stalin

    stalin Guest

    Who do you think supplied much of the rail that the lovely trains ran on! The americans that you love to death!
    you what???
    every joke should have it's limits.
     
  19. stalin

    stalin Guest

    Even today you'll see that the rail network can't get an army near enough to the objective to get the job done. If you don't have enough trucks you have the problem of 'ferrying' the troops and supplies to the area they are required in the limited vehicled you do have or picking everything up and walking with it. Both inflict severe planning delays and restrict tactical flexibility.
    those days was not "today".
     
  20. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    I'm posting this again on this thread to ram the fact home.
    Here is an example of PQ convoy. In January of 1944, an American lend-lease convoy left Seattle bound for Vladivostok. Its manifest read as follows:

    46 merchantmen (all 8-10K ton ships); built by McCormack Ship Yards; Soviet flagged (to avoid being torpedoed by the Japanese who could attack U.S. flagged vessels but who could not attack Soviet flagged ones) and Soviet crewed.

    Six of the 46 ships were loaded with ammunitions and small arms. Four of the 46 ships were loaded with foodstuffs. Two of the 46 ships were loaded by Dodge (presumably with trucks). One ship was loaded by Westinghouse (presumably with communications gear).

    They carried:


    22.000 tons of steel provided by U.S. Steel.
    3.000 truck chassis, by Ford (the Soviets also assembled U.S. trucks from parts).
    3.000 truck differentials from Thornton Tandem Co.
    2.000 tractors by Allis Chalmers Co. (agricultural and military use)
    1.500 automotive batteries from the Price Battery Corp.
    1.000 aircraft provided by the North American Aviation Co.
    612 airplanes from the Douglas Aircraft Co.
    600 trucks from Mack.
    500 Allison aircraft engines.
    500 half-tracks from Minneapolis Moline Co.
    400 airplanes from Bell Aircraft
    400 electric motors from Wagner Electric Co.
    400 truck chassis by GM (see Ford above)
    310 tons of ball bearings from the Fafnir Company.
    200 aircraft provided by the U.S. Navy
    200 aircraft engines by Aeromarine
    100 tractor-trailer units by GM (trucks)
    70 aircraft engines by Pratt & Whitney


    The following table, not an inclusive one by any means, shows the extent of lend-lease aid the Western Allies provided to the Soviet Union from 01 October 1941 to 31 March 1946 (not a typo, aid went on well after WWII ended). CW - Commonwealth contribution; US - American contribution:

    Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206
    Automotive:
    --- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)
    --- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)
    --- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)
    Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)
    Boots - 15 million pairs (US)
    Communications equipment:
    --- Field phones - 380.135 (US)
    --- Radios - 40.000 (US)
    --- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)
    Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)
    Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)
    Leather - 49.000 tons (US)
    Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)
    Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)
    Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)
    Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755
    Tractors - 8.701 (US)
    Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

    I will repeat the number of TRUCKS 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

    So stalin the Soviet Army did not need trucks eh?
    Add this 361 903 to the Soviet made ones and answer me that.
     

Share This Page