CALM Discussion of the Eastern Front.

You mean i actually have to do some reading? Now that takes the fun out of life. First working at Uni, now working on the forums. Cheers ZR! But thanks for the heads-up. If i ever get my life back I'll add some of those books to the ever growing pile in the corner of my room.
Kitty

[Gage]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

Excellent thread Von Poop and yes lets discuss this in a calm fashion!!!!! There is always the belief for example that the Russian Campaign simply consisted of Barbarossa, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and the End when loads took place in between!

I'm not really that up on the Eastern Front - Bagration??????

[Za Rodinu]

It's not Bag-Ration, it's Bagration, Bah-grah-tzion ! Named after a Russian general in the Napoleonic Wars. The great Red Army offensive in Belarus in June 1944 in the same timeframe as Overlord, nicknamed Destruction of Army Group Centre. Where the Germans got the wrong end of Blitzkrieg.

Decent book by Setve Zaloga in Osprey Publishing.

"Overall the annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured; overall casualties at 670,000. Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost." from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

Other more or less related sites

http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/11/...ion-bagration/

http://hnn.us/articles/5545.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/ref...tion_bagration

http://www.geocities.com/sonzabird/majorops.html


Interesting too, Deception in Op. Bagration
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...3-88_histp.htm

By the way, my avatar is an Order of Kutusov, 1st class, with a bit of photoshop added by me. Kutusov was a colleague of Bagration.

[Za Rodinu]

Originally Posted by mosquito617

You mean i actually have to do some reading?

That's right. In case nobody told you, reading is good for you

It is? Damn, never realised. By the way, can you hightail your knowledgable backside over to a new thread on Portugal, we need your opinion there.
Kitty

[Gage]

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

It's not Bag-Ration, it's Bagration, Bah-grah-tzion ! Named after a Russian general in the Napoleonic Wars. The great Red Army offensive in Belarus in June 1944 in the same timeframe as Overlord, nicknamed Destruction of Army Group Centre. Where the Germans got the wrong end of Blitzkrieg.

Decent book by Setve Zaloga in Osprey Publishing.

"Overall the annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured; overall casualties at 670,000. Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost." from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

Other more or less related sites

http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/11/...ion-bagration/

http://hnn.us/articles/5545.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/ref...tion_bagration

http://www.geocities.com/sonzabird/majorops.html


Interesting too, Deception in Op. Bagration
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...3-88_histp.htm

By the way, my avatar is an Order of Kutusov, 1st class, with a bit of photoshop added by me. Kutusov was a colleague of Bagration.

Thank you.

First time i saw the name Bagration i instantly had a vision of a shortage of handbags. i need to get out more.

[Za Rodinu]

Originally Posted by mosquito617

It is? Damn, never realised. By the way, can you hightail your knowledgable backside over to a new thread on Portugal, we need your opinion there.
Kitty

Jeez, and I came to this forum to escape my wife! They're all alike!

-----------

Gage, you're welcome

[Herroberst]

I have read alot on these threads people quote books say read this or that...that's fine but what about what you as a poster got out of reading this book or that ? Why you liked or didn't like it? What you agree or disagree about the authors point? Perhaps a review? As I look at this thread I see people treading on rice paper but not really discussing Orders of Battle(why or what composition was important) The Leaders of those actions from small unit to Corp/Korp.
The technological aspects of Axis/Allied weapons. Which was better, worse? Tactic, stategy, roles of organization, logistics,combat effectiveness of said unit types.

One or two items brought up to comment on


Here's mine comment on supply or interdiction of supply to Axis/Allies. How did that effect Kursk/Destuction of Armee Gruppe Centre?

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Simple. I don't even try to defend or justify Soviet morality, inhumanity, etc. I am already entirely aware of that, but I keep it separate from study of military history. I don't necessarily have to like or condone those less agreable facets, so it's no use trying to hit me with that particular type of stone as that will only generate hot air and will sidetrack what would be an interesting topic until a moderator loses patience and locks the thread. If I want to discuss or defend Soviet politics (unlikely), I'll go to the appropriate political section of the forum, here that is a waste of time.

Can I provide an analogy? If I want to discuss the II SS-Panzerkorps at Kursk I certainly can not be expected to go at great lengths about death camps or Gestapo torture. That's not related, that's for another thread, this discussion is purely military.

If we don't have to damn the nazis whenever we discuss Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS military actions in this forum we do we need to jump up foam in the mouth whenever someone speaks about the Red Army? What are we, pavlovian lab test dogs?

Is that ok?

Seems like you have rationalized every possible permutation for my posting a low opinion of the Soviet Army except for the one where I actually believe they were a poor military. Seems like the only way I can hold a position like that, in your eyes, is if I have a bias against them.

I simply think the WWII Soviet philosophy of complete disregard for the poor conscript and the fact that dead solders do not become experienced veterans, speaks volumes toward their quality as an army. It so happens that their philosophy has an immoral aspect to it as well as an unwise aspect but that is either purely coincidental or the fruit of sowing those kinds of seeds.

My suggestion they load soldiers into bomb bays and drop them on the Germans is not that much of a cynical statement in that they really didn't use them much more efficiently by running them at machine guns.

General Patton was a veteran general who not only studied at two military colleges in the US but studied warfare since he was 8 years old. A lifelong military career and this excellent training made him tactically very sound. Contrast that with the fact the Russians killed off their veteran generals from the rabid paranoia of a brutal dictatorship and you have in their place, substandard generals who know very little about war strategy and tactics.

Again the brutality in and over itself was never the primary point of why the Soviets are seen as a poor army but rather it is simply that these things are not conducive to producing a solid army. If pouring a little water in your gas tank does not make your car run better, then pouring a lot won't either. Likewise if you foster poor skills, poor fighting techniques will follow and that was evidenced by their use of "brute force" tactics.

To me, that speaks volumes though it might not be music to your ears. I don't like the SS and Nazis but I am aware that they were some of the best soldiers in the war, so my conclusions are not based on my emotions.

Keeping these things in mind, the "awe" of the Red Army seems to me to be non-sequitur and therefore I don't have the respect for them you do and I couldn't without being fake.

When I look at the Soviets in WWII, I really do think of a very backward people that benefited by weather and the grace and goodwill of the "enemies of their enemy". I can't say ally because that has a connotation that they shared mutual good will. I used the example that if a Commonwealth soldier came upon a US soldier who was injured, he would almost certainly threat him as though he was a wounded member of his own group. I would even expect a soldier from either of these armies to risk their lives to save a soldier from the other. I don't have to ask myself "But what if instead they were a Canadian, or maybe an Australian soldier?" it simply does not matter. Courage is the calling card of free men whose acts are inspired by their appreciation of freedom whose duty is governed by their value of their fellow man. They are not motivated to do "brave" things out of fear their commander will shoot them if they don't. They are subject to acting spontaneously brave, even if they don't know the person they are trying to save, they simply see his uniform and know he is one of theirs because they are truly brother in arms, even if the uniform is different.

You can't part the character of a man from his quality of fighting. They are inseparably linked. Ask sapper why he would walk into a mine field and try to disarm mines knowing they could go off at any time and maim or kill him. Ask him if he did it because he was afraid of his CO. He probably volunteered to be an engineer.

No friend, there are better reasons to fight than fear. The duty that you always hear free soldiers talk about is what drives them to such seemingly irrational behavior, at least from a personal survival point of view. It is simply wrong to accuse me of disrespecting the Soviet army because of contempt for their lack of humanity. The fact is, as I said before, quality and character go hand in hand. Like you said Za, this is purely a military assessment. I would say it if I were a Communist. The Soviets were highly overrated as a military even though they got very little credit in the first place.

No foaming, at the mouth. No expression of hatred, just a simple assessment of what we know as history and what we know about the fundamentals of military techniques. Abundant numbers of men to lose, may help you win, but that is anything but illustrative of a talented military, in fact, to me, it is quite the contrary. I could get rid of a coyote in a corn field by setting it on fire but it does not speak well of my hunting skills.