Kiev Defence Operation as a factor - Page 2

Gotthard Heinrici · 02-01-2007, 05:14 PM

AMVAS, Thank you so much for that. That is some amount of troops and it also goes some way to disprove the theories of Suvorov. If Stalin was planning to attack Germany why was the greatest concetration of Soviet Soldiers in the Southwestern Front???

Za Rodinu · 02-01-2007, 06:33 PM

What Suvorov?

AMVAS · 02-01-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

AMVAS, Thank you so much for that. That is some amount of troops and it also goes some way to disprove the theories of Suvorov. If Stalin was planning to attack Germany why was the greatest concetration of Soviet Soldiers in the Southwestern Front???

Take into account many unit numbers (especially for the tank troops) were only figures and nothing more. Real strength of them was not too much as well as some rifle units.

I'm not going to discuss pro and contra for Rezun/Suvorov's theories. One need to write a book for this.
I can only say every string in his papers contain lie, inexactness or at least quuestionable thing.
Besides all he's total fool in technical topics!!!

Lets stop here about Rezun, or I'll become too angry...

In any case figures for September can't stay for the same for June 22.
I have those on every month of the war and for June 22 they differs much from September's

Regards,
Alex

Owen · 03-01-2007, 10:15 AM

Just reading in David Glantz Barbarossa that Hitler's intention was to destroy the Red Army rather than achieve any specific terrain or political objective.

Quote:

"The mass of the [Red] Army stationed in Western Russia is to be destroyed in bold operations ...."
quoted from [the real] Gotthard Heinrici .

Capturing 600 000 soldiers from any other Army but the Red Army would have been a crippling blow.
OK, so maybe there wasn't a threat of encirclement but what other Army would carry on fighting taking these kind of losses?

Gotthard Heinrici · 03-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Owen, thats just the point. In the case of any other army, the destruction of the army in the field would bring about the surrender of almost any other country. But Russia is an entirely different matter. My own opinion on this is that Hitler couldnt make his mind up about what he wanted to do. First it was take Leningrad, then the Ukraine, then he decided to make Moscow the main target, I mean there was no coherent strategy that was adhered to. The mark of a good plan is one that is flexible but Barbarossa was too flexible in that it did not have a final objective and that was part of its downfall.

AMVAS · 03-01-2007, 11:28 AM

Gentlemen, the year 1941 was such a horrible for the Red Army, that I can't find words to describe it!
It was a way from one catastrophe to another! All the year long, on all directions!!! There were only some variations in degrees of those catastrophes. From horrible to monstrous ones, to my opinion

Only one figure. When after war the number of losses were counted it was found that RKKA lost 98% of prewar staff killed, captured and missed in combat!!!

Regards,
Alex

Gotthard Heinrici · 05-01-2007, 11:22 AM

It was an absolute miracle that the Red Army survived as a cohesive unit. The more I read about it the more I realise how lucky they were.

Owen · 07-01-2007, 09:53 PM

I've posted this elsewhere but seems fit to put it here too.
From David Glantz, Barbarossa.

Quote:

....the army's personnel strength rose from 5 373 000 on 22 June to 6 889 000 on 31 August and an estimated 8 million on 31 December.

Whereas prewar German estimates had postulated an enemy of approximately 300 divisions, by December the Soviets had fielded more than twice that number. This allowed the Red Army to lose more than 4 million soldiers and 200 divisions in battle by 31 December, roughly equivalent to it's entire peacetime army, yet still survive to continue the struggle.

Quote:

By 31 December, the Red Army lost a total of 4,308,94[?] men and 229 divisions

AMVAS · 08-01-2007, 08:56 AM

Number of Soviet troops on June 22:

Western theatre: 2,742,881 men
Troops not engaged in combats: 2,691,848 men

von Poop · 08-01-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMVAS

Number of Soviet troops on June 22:

Western theatre: 2,742,881 men
Troops not engaged in combats: 2,691,848 men

Amazing that 50,000 troops can be considered a fraction.

02-01-2007, 05:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
Gotthard Heinrici Pog mo thon Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,856	AMVAS, Thank you so much for that. That is some amount of troops and it also goes some way to disprove the theories of Suvorov. If Stalin was planning to attack Germany why was the greatest concetration of Soviet Soldiers in the Southwestern Front??? __________________ *"The Eastern front is like a house of cards. If the front is broken through at one point all the rest will collapse."* - General Heinz Guderian

02-01-2007, 06:33 PM	#12 (permalink)
Za Rodinu So you hear voices too? Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,244	What Suvorov? __________________ "Tell me again, son, who lost the frigging war?"

03-01-2007, 10:34 AM	#15 (permalink)
Gotthard Heinrici Pog mo thon Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,856	Owen, thats just the point. In the case of any other army, the destruction of the army in the field would bring about the surrender of almost any other country. But Russia is an entirely different matter. My own opinion on this is that Hitler couldnt make his mind up about what he wanted to do. First it was take Leningrad, then the Ukraine, then he decided to make Moscow the main target, I mean there was no coherent strategy that was adhered to. The mark of a good plan is one that is flexible but Barbarossa was too flexible in that it did not have a final objective and that was part of its downfall. __________________ *"The Eastern front is like a house of cards. If the front is broken through at one point all the rest will collapse."* - General Heinz Guderian

05-01-2007, 11:22 AM	#17 (permalink)
Gotthard Heinrici Pog mo thon Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,856	It was an absolute miracle that the Red Army survived as a cohesive unit. The more I read about it the more I realise how lucky they were. __________________ *"The Eastern front is like a house of cards. If the front is broken through at one point all the rest will collapse."* - General Heinz Guderian

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-01-2007, 11:28 AM	#16 (permalink)
AMVAS Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Moscow Posts: 176	Gentlemen, the year 1941 was such a horrible for the Red Army, that I can't find words to describe it! It was a way from one catastrophe to another! All the year long, on all directions!!! There were only some variations in degrees of those catastrophes. From horrible to monstrous ones, to my opinion Only one figure. When after war the number of losses were counted it was found that RKKA lost 98% of prewar staff killed, captured and missed in combat!!! Regards, Alex

08-01-2007, 08:56 AM	#19 (permalink)
AMVAS Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Moscow Posts: 176	Number of Soviet troops on June 22: Western theatre: 2,742,881 men Troops not engaged in combats: 2,691,848 men

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Boer War Stuff	dbf	Prewar	29	21-07-2008 11:20 AM
THE WAFFEN-SS: Divisional Service History, Brigade/Battalion Unit List + Unit Notes.	Christos	Axis Units	74	30-05-2008 11:42 PM
Operation Bagration	Gotthard Heinrici	Battle Specifics	15	01-05-2008 05:41 PM
Operation Pike	Kyt	The Eastern Front	0	27-11-2006 02:34 PM
Operation 'Zipper'	Mark Hone	Battle Specifics	5	14-09-2006 03:57 AM