BF2S Forums WW2 : Germany vs Russia

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- stalin had 90% of the generals and 60% of all the officers executed between 1935 and 1939. and leading on the battlefield doesn't substitute for a general staff education

Those 10% of generals actually recomended themself as quite skillfull commanders of armies and army groups. I dont deny the fact that german officer school was probably the best one in the world during WWI-WWII, but dont underestimate red army staff officers.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- there are several reasons why hitler and then stalin were able to conquer half of europe but none of them was their (non-existent) military leadership and operational skills

I personally read a lot of books regarding the subject, and I believe Stalin of course hadn't knowledge and skills of a staff officer, but he certainly was able to take proper decisions on tactical and strategical level. He screwed up in 1941 though, thats a fact.

Same goes for Hitler, early blitzkriegs are the proof of that.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- yeah, the red army was near the line of demarcation, but they could have easily been withdrawn to the east (which was done in the summer of 42 during the german offensive in direction of stalingrad and the caucasus)

For millions of soviet soldiers and officers german attack on 22 of june, 1941, was completely unexpected. German summer offensive in 1942 was absolutely obvious and red army was well prepared for it.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- it's a myth that stalin planned to attack germany (at least not within the next 5 years or so). that preemptive-war theory (hitler anticipating stalin) is simply not true

I would say it's a quite strong theory and I believe in it. I might be wrong, but there are gazzillion facts that are prooving that Stalin was about to attack Hitler in late summer of 1941.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- the mistakes of the soviet generals far outweighed these of their german counterparts

At early stages of war, yes. At later stages of war they were even.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- at the battle of berlin, the germans had about 1 million soldiers 800 tanks and 100 aircraft, the soviets had 2,5 million soldiers, 6250 tanks, 7500 aircraft and far more than 10000 artillery guns. plus the german soldiers were mostly elderly or very young or weary

Urban combat negates the number of anything but infantry. Tanks are easy target when there are panzershrek and faustpatron teams in each 3-4 stores building. Artillery & aircraft hadn't that level of precision for attack inside of a large town. Battle of Berlin was won by a rifle and bayonet. The biggest loss of personel was suffered exactly after soviets reached Berlin suburbs.

CC-Marley wrote:

The Russians also mass produced effective tanks (T-34) deep in her territory. Far out of reach of Hitler's bombers.

Nazi Germany never had real long-range strategic bombers so thats quite obvious that soviet industry at Ural and in Siberia was out of reach.
As for T-34, yes, it was perfect medium tank which served well in russian conditions (e.g. cold and snowy winter, rainy and dirty spring, hot summer) but T-34 sertainly wasn't the only factor that effected situation at front. Russian artillery & rocket artillery were far superior to their german counterparts. Russian aircraft in mid-late stage of war was even if not better than german ones. Famous IL-2 Shturmovik (tank buster and CAS aircraft) was one of the best during WWII. T-34 was the most produced, but not the only type of tanks, there were lots of other successful war-proven tank designs.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The Soviets were helped in large part by the fact that Germany was fighting everybody. Change that, and they might not have even been able to keep up with production.

Majority of german army was fighting at eastern front, you know..

Last edited by Longbow (2010-03-14 18:55:33)

Longbow wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The Soviets were helped in large part by the fact that Germany was fighting everybody. Change that, and they might not have even been able to keep up with production.

Majority of german army was fighting at eastern front, you know..

Uh-huh. If you think the Soviets could have solo'd Nazi Germany, then there's no point arguing.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Longbow what urban combat? There wasn't a dang thing left in Berlin from all the bombing and artillery dropped on it. It was like Stalingrad, nothing but ruins.

lol




Hamburg after the 1943 bombing:




And most of Berlin looked like:




There was plenty left standing, as it was fire that did most of the damage to structures.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

In my opinion, it's a lot easier to fight in a town with buildings still intact for a number of reasons. The Germans and Russians both screwed up on that level.

Longbow wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- stalin had 90% of the generals and 60% of all the officers executed between 1935 and 1939. and leading on the battlefield doesn't substitute for a general staff education

Those 10% of generals actually recomended themself as quite skillfull commanders of armies and army groups. I dont deny the fact that german officer school was probably the best one in the world during WWI-WWII, but dont underestimate red army staff officers.

No they really weren't, they used brute force in the majority of engagements, even towards the end of the war. Read up on Seelow Heights.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- there are several reasons why hitler and then stalin were able to conquer half of europe but none of them was their (non-existent) military leadership and operational skills

I personally read a lot of books regarding the subject, and I believe Stalin of course hadn't knowledge and skills of a staff officer, but he certainly was able to take proper decisions on tactical and strategical level. He screwed up in 1941 though, thats a fact.

Same goes for Hitler, early blitzkriegs are the proof of that.

Both of them had zero strategic knowledge, if both of them had listened to their generals things would have been a lot different.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- yeah, the red army was near the line of demarcation, but they could have easily been withdrawn to the east (which was done in the summer of 42 during the german offensive in direction of stalingrad and the caucasus)

For millions of soviet soldiers and officers german attack on 22 of june, 1941, was completely unexpected. German summer offensive in 1942 was absolutely obvious and red army was well prepared for it.

Stalin was aware of the German offensive hours before it happened, he just refused to believe that Hitler would break their treaty, even hours after the Germans attacked he refused to believe it. Stalin was definitely not planning to attack Germany.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- it's a myth that stalin planned to attack germany (at least not within the next 5 years or so). that preemptive-war theory (hitler anticipating stalin) is simply not true

I would say it's a quite strong theory and I believe in it. I might be wrong, but there are gazzillion facts that are prooving that Stalin was about to attack Hitler in late summer of 1941.

Just no.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- the mistakes of the soviet generals far outweighed these of their german counterparts

At early stages of war, yes. At later stages of war they were even.

No they really weren't, even though Hitler had tantrums and got half his Generals killed/reassigned the Germans still had much more experienced Generals.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

- at the battle of berlin, the germans had about 1 million soldiers 800 tanks and 100 aircraft, the soviets had 2,5 million soldiers, 6250 tanks, 7500 aircraft and far more than 10000 artillery guns. plus the german soldiers were mostly elderly or very young or weary

Urban combat negates the number of anything but infantry. Tanks are easy target when there are panzershrek and faustpatron teams in each 3-4 stores building. Artillery & aircraft hadn't that level of precision for attack inside of a large town. Battle of Berlin was won by a rifle and bayonet. The biggest loss of personel was suffered exactly after soviets reached Berlin suburbs.

I don't know where either of you are getting your numbers from but in Berlin itself there were hardly any soldiers, most of them were Volkssturm who surrendered pretty quickly. You guys are quoting numbers without knowing where they actually were, the numbers you are referring to are the numbers used in the final assault on Berlin which actually took place all around Berlin. Seelow Heights, etc.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

In my opinion, it's a lot easier to fight in a town with buildings still intact for a number of reasons

wrong. see battle of montecassino

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

"What is now known is that the Germans had an agreement with the monks to not use the Abbey for military purposes as long as they remained. Following its destruction, paratroopers of the German 1st Parachute Division then occupied the ruins of the abbey and turned it into a fortress and observation post, which became a serious problem for the attacking allied forces"

actually, destroyed buildings provide much better fortifications/defensive lines

Trotskygrad wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

actually, destroyed buildings provide much better fortifications/defensive lines

Orly?

yes

edit:

"On 15 February, the monastery, high on a peak overlooking the town of Cassino, was destroyed by 1,400 tons of bombs dropped by American bombers. The bombing was based on the fear that the abbey was being used as a lookout post for the German defenders (this position evolved over time to admit that German soldiers were not garrisoned there but that the risk of the monastery becoming occupied justified the action). Two days after the bombing, German paratroopers took up positions in the ruins; the destruction caused by the bombing and the resulting jagged wasteland of rubble gave troops improved protection from air and artillery attack making it a more viable defensive position. From 17 January to 18 May, the Gustav defences were assaulted four times by Allied troops. For the last of these the Allies gathered 20 divisions for a major assault along a twenty mile front and drove the German defenders from their positions but at a high cost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ … he_bombing

Last edited by cl4u53w1t2 (2010-03-15 11:59:22)

Trotskygrad wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Orly?

yes

I seriously doubt that. Destroyed means less cover

I would believe causewitz on this... Doesn't he have a major in military history and now going for a Phd or some shit.

Destroyed buildings offer good camo as well.

Trotskygrad wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Orly?

yes

I seriously doubt that. Destroyed means less cover

A huge pile of concrete and steel that looks just like every other, plus streets pockmarked by craters provide less cover than squatting behind a wood counter in a diner?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

In my opinion, it's a lot easier to fight in a town with buildings still intact for a number of reasons

wrong. see battle of montecassino

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

"What is now known is that the Germans had an agreement with the monks to not use the Abbey for military purposes as long as they remained. Following its destruction, paratroopers of the German 1st Parachute Division then occupied the ruins of the abbey and turned it into a fortress and observation post, which became a serious problem for the attacking allied forces"

actually, destroyed buildings provide much better fortifications/defensive lines

That's what I'm saying.

By blowing up the buildings and leaving not much but ruble, they can defend really easily, and it's a bitch to spot things in it.

Now imagine regular European streets and buildings. You hear a shot, where do you look? Windows, streets and roofs. If you've got nothing but ruins, it becomes total shit.


Instead of posting facepalms and shit, why don't you prove me wrong you ignorant armchair whores?

Here is a real AMERICAN Marine talking. OORAH

Cybargs wrote:

Here is a real AMERICAN Marine talking. OORAH

it must be true then.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Again, an insult instead of simply proving me wrong or agreeing.

I'll take that for a victory.

Edit: I'll remind you this is DS&T.

honestly read your fucking posts in this thread.

None of you are even saying WHY is gay. You're just making dumb posts.

Honestly I don't give a fuck what you guys think but I just laugh inside at the fact you can discuss properly. (The ones insulting me)

Now, tell me why it's better to waste a city to ruins. Make a valid point.