Stereotypes About The Red Army And Russia

[Gotthard Heinrici]

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.

[von Poop]

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!

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

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.

Originally Posted by MaxPower

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.

[spidge]

Originally Posted by stalin

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

Do videnja!

[morse1001]

Originally Posted by stalin

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?

[Harry Ree]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

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.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Harry Ree

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 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 nearly always mounted on American trucks, Many of these vehicles served the SU well into the cold war.

[Panzerfaust]

There a bunch of uncivilized communist ruskie bandits!

There, that's a red army stereotype!

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Panzerfaust

There a bunch of uncivilized communist ruskie bandits!

There, that's a red army stereotype!