The Red Army and its rise from the Ashes

[von Poop]

Now then Gott, would I be correct in assuming this is all really part of the process of rehabilitating the Red Army's 'traditional' historical image among many in the West as nothing more than a crudely wielded lump-hammer, and actually trying to get to the truth of the matter?
Despite their political leader's shenanigans and disgraces they, like the other Allies, had quite a mountain to climb militarily, and they seem to have climbed it well, becoming a pretty focused & finessed 'modern' force by war's end (despite some failures in supply and other not directly combat related military affairs).

The turning point between first and second period is quite straightforward to me, being the end of '41, but when the 'meat-grinding' ended is a little bit more open to debate, Stalingrad could be said to be the mid-point of that process rather than a cusp, I'd go with your initial suggestion that Bagration onwards was when the final evolution of the WW2 Red Army was most fully in place.

Two and a half years...
That's some Meat-Grinder.

Cheers,
Adam.

[kfz]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

It was a significant battle on the Eastern Front but the turning point in the East had already taken place and that was Operation Typhoon in 1941. Stalingrad buried once and for all the notion that Germany could win the war in the East, whilst Kursk dispelled the notion that Germany could achieve any sort of settlement in the East. But to destroy Russia, Germany had one shot and that was a year before Stalingrad.

Spot on GH, I think your 100% correct. I dont think Hitler helped, Stalingrad was plain stupidity and played right into the meat grinders hands. If Tyhpoon was a success and somehow Von Bock wintered in Moscow, Uncle Joe went East, looking at a differnet ending to WW2, at least in 1945 that is.

Kev

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Now then Gott, would I be correct in assuming this is all really part of the process of rehabilitating the Red Army's 'traditional' historical image among many in the West as nothing more than a crudely wielded lump-hammer, and actually trying to get to the truth of the matter?
Despite their political leader's shenanigans and disgraces they, like the other Allies, had quite a mountain to climb militarily, and they seem to have climbed it well, becoming a pretty focused & finessed 'modern' force by war's end (despite some failures in supply and other not directly combat related military affairs).

The turning point between first and second period is quite straightforward to me, being the end of '41, but when the 'meat-grinding' ended is a little bit more open to debate, Stalingrad could be said to be the mid-point of that process rather than a cusp, I'd go with your initial suggestion that Bagration onwards was when the final evolution of the WW2 Red Army was most fully in place.

Two and a half years...
That's some Meat-Grinder.

Cheers,
Adam.

I suppose you could say that VP!! For too long the Red Army has been perceived as a mass of human waves who had no Tactical Awareness and relied on sheer weight of numbers to overwhelm the Germans. Its just not that simple.
As regards the timelines well they are very fluid but I suppose the Battles around Moscow finished off the last of the pre-war army, and I would agree that the Red Army that launched its attack on 22nd june 1944 was a million miles away from its predecessor. It was a very capable army and well able to perform large scale strategic offensives as well as smaller actions. It still had many flaws but strategically in terms of equipment, fighting ability and leadership its 1944 version was better than anything the Heer could put up against it.

[4th wilts]

it took 3 yrs for the british army to learn newtactics to beat jerry at alamein imo.it seems the soviet union took approx the same.yours,lee.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Whilst it took the Russians 4 years to emerge victorious over the Germans it took them 9 months to learn how to stop them and 1 year more to learn how to inflict a massive defeat upon them!

[4th wilts]

ah,the year of ten victories.yours,lee.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by 4th wilts

ah,the year of ten victories.yours,lee.

10 victories?? which ones were they then??

[drgslyr]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

I suppose you could say that VP!! For too long the Red Army has been perceived as a mass of human waves who had no Tactical Awareness and relied on sheer weight of numbers to overwhelm the Germans. Its just not that simple.
As regards the timelines well they are very fluid but I suppose the Battles around Moscow finished off the last of the pre-war army, and I would agree that the Red Army that launched its attack on 22nd june 1944 was a million miles away from its predecessor. It was a very capable army and well able to perform large scale strategic offensives as well as smaller actions. It still had many flaws but strategically in terms of equipment, fighting ability and leadership its 1944 version was better than anything the Heer could put up against it.

No, it is not that simple, but nearly so. The fact is, in a war of attrition the Russians were able to put more people and more equipment into the field than the Germans. Nearly until the war's end the Soviets continued to have greater losses than the Germans, yet the Red Army continued to expand and the German army continued to dwindle. I was reading Lost Victories, the war memoirs of Erich von Manstein, several weeks ago and the thing that I found completely surprising was that Manstein consistently eluded to the fact that the quality of the Russian infantry steadily declined from 1942-1944. The meat-grinder mentality of the Russian leaders never really stopped; the Russian losses were horrendous, although their leadership did gain experience and adapt its stategic policies as the war progressed. From 1942 to the war's end, however, the Red Army's ever-increasing advantage over the Germans in equipment and men (in terms of numbers) helped them to appear more capable than they really were.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

funny you should bring up Von Manstein as a source on this.

I have posted a link to an interesting article about Von Manstein. Note that the author does not give a whole lot of credence to Von Manstein's biography

Axis History Factbook: Erich von Manstein: His Life, Character and Operations – A Reappraisal

[4th wilts]

it must be remembered even after stslingrad,that the germans were still very capable of kicking the russians in the face,so to speak.the recapture of kharkov springs to mind.lee.