The only thing the Soviets accomplished was the capture of Berlin

[beefheart]

Between 1917 and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the only thing the Soviets ever accomplished was the victory over the Germans.


Prove me wrong.

 

[beefheart]

Between 1917 and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the only thing the Soviets ever accomplished was the victory over the Germans.


Prove me wrong.

 

[Felis Leo]

My favorite 'what if' is if Hitler had chosen to invade Turkey and raced to the oilfields via that route instead of going the way he did and then let himself be tempted by Stalingrad. He would have killed two birds with one stone, or three, actually, one being threatening the other flank of Egypt, and two, seized the oilfields, and cut off a major Lend?Lease route to the Soviets.

Well if that might have been a possibility. Germany could have likely swept up Constantinople and cut off the Dardanelles with relative ease. But invading the mountainous Anatolian penninsula in order to strike upwards at the Soviet Union would have neutralized the effectiveness of German armor. It is highly doubtful that the invasion of the entirety of Turkey would have been a quick affair. And once it became apparent that Hitler was committing such forces to encircle the Soviet Union, Stalin almost certainly would have lent material and military aid to Turkey. Anatolia would have almost certainly have become an unwinnable quagmire for the Germans.

And if Hitler had attacked Turkey in conjunction with Barbarossa or post-Barbarossa? He would have lost sooner because that would have diverted even more manpower, tanks, artillery and planes that were sorely needed for the thrust into the Soviet Union via Ukraine. It is not as though the Germans were flush with effectively unlimited manpower. It must be remembered just how many allied divisions from Hungary and Romania the Germans were relying on for their main invasion.

 

[Closer]

You have that backwards; 20% were mixed and 15% were pure.

Correct, I did indeed have them backwards. They use Dunn as their source, but don't mention Dunn's source. If he used 'official' Soviet sources than its not a stretch to think they downplayed the U.S. and British roles in their military achievements, heavily so.

That's an oversimplification of it. As the Germans advanced their increasingly exposed flanks could only be covered by their depleted infantry divisions, which were incapable of holding their ground. It wasn't the big tank clashes that decided Kursk, it was the constant counterattacks by Soviet divisional, regimental, and battalion groups against the German flanks that eroded German ability to press further in.

The minefields are what stopped the German advances dead in their tracks, and hamstrung any chance at successful offensive actions. The lack of supplies did the rest; it became a war of attrition without air superiority. Despite their equipment and materiel advantage, the Soviets relied on human wave attacks, hardly tactical and strategic geniuses.

 

[Closer]

80% of German casualties were inflicted by Russia. The Germans were being pushed back to Poland on D-day and Germany was moving divisions east to counter Operation Bagration weeks after the Normandy invasion.
D-day was as much about keeping Russia contained as about helping defeat Germany. The USSR won WW2 in Europe.

Casualties inflicted by British and American supplies and heavy pressure with daily British and American attacks on Germany itself, without which they would have lost.

 

[Grand Mal]

Casualties inflicted by British and American supplies and heavy pressure with daily British and American attacks on Germany itself, without which they would have lost.

Yeah, the Brits and Yanks helped out. Along with all other Allies, they account for 20%. But the Germans were already being pushed back on D-day.

 

[Closer]

Well if that might have been a possibility. Germany could have likely swept up Constantinople and cut off the Dardanelles with relative ease. But invading the mountainous Anatolian penninsula in order to strike upwards at the Soviet Union would have neutralized the effectiveness of German armor. It is highly doubtful that the invasion of the entirety of Turkey would have been a quick affair. And once it became apparent that Hitler was committing such forces to encircle the Soviet Union, Stalin almost certainly would have lent material and military aid to Turkey. Anatolia would have almost certainly have become an unwinnable quagmire for the Germans.

The Turks and the Brits had little to oppose them with, and the Soviets would be tied down by the other invasions, since the one through Turkey would necessarily have been possible only without the northern offensive, and using the shift in men and material used in the invasion of Greece. The Balkans and Greece didn't offer much of an obstacle, and neither would Turkey. The Soviets couldn't have supplied anybody, they couldn't even supply themselves that early in the war. The small British forces in Egypt had their hands full with Rommel and the Canal to defend.

The only alternative would be mobilizing masses of Indian troops, not likely given the war in Burma and Malaysia. Maybe with the aid earmarked for the Soviets, like the trucks, it would be possible.

 

[Closer]

Yeah, the Brits and Yanks helped out. Along with all other Allies, they account for 20%. But the Germans were already being pushed back on D-day.

The Brits and Yanks were they only reason the Soviets were still in the war.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If he used 'official' Soviet sources than its not a stretch to think they downplayed the U.S. and British roles in their military achievements, heavily so.

If they are from the Soviet archives there's little reason to doubt their accuracy; the Soviets did not lie to themselves on their own records.

The minefields are what stopped the German advances dead in their tracks, and hamstrung any chance at successful offensive actions.

Again, this is not really accurate. The Germans had dealt with minefields before, and at Kursk they navigated through them multiple times.

What decided Kursk was not the massive armored clashes, nearly off all which the Germans won; it was the newr buckling of their flanks which were under repeated attack that nullified whatever gains the Panzers made.

Despite their equipment and materiel advantage, the Soviets relied on human wave attacks, hardly tactical and strategic geniuses.

This is also not true; the Soviets did not employ human waves and by 1943 their offensives were marked by repeatedly outsmarting and outmaneuvering the Germans.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Brits and Yanks were they only reason the Soviets were still in the war.

Really? I would have guessed that the Germans knocking on Stalin's door kept the Soviets in it.
If you mean 'still in it' as in still able to be effective, you're partly right but don't minimize the industrial productive capability of the Soviets. Soviet tanks and airplanes might not have been the same quality as the German and Allied heavy equipment but they made a lot of them. Made them with the help of their allies, true but on the battlefield the Russians were westbound before Normandy. The Soviet Union won that war, with help from Western material.
I say Normandy was about keeping the Soviets confined. Without the Allied armies in western Europe the Soviets might have gone through to Spain to punish Franco. The Soviet Union with western European production facilities in-hand would have been a worse nightmare than Nazi Germany was.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Really? I would have guessed that the Germans knocking on Stalin's door kept the Soviets in it.
If you mean 'still in it' as in still able to be effective, you're partly right but don't minimize the industrial productive capability of the Soviets. Soviet tanks and airplanes might not have been the same quality as the German and Allied heavy equipment but they made a lot of them. Made them with the help of their allies, true but on the battlefield the Russians were westbound before Normandy. The Soviet Union won that war, with help from Western material.
I say Normandy was about keeping the Soviets confined. Without the Allied armies in western Europe the Soviets might have gone through to Spain to punish Franco. The Soviet Union with western European production facilities in-hand would have been a worse nightmare than Nazi Germany was.

I think the point is without lend lease and the Brits and American help the Soviets would have had a lot more problems manufacturing those tanks and planes.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I think another thing we got to realize is even though the Western allies took a lot of heat for not opening a second front earlier. The bombing campaign over Germany was a second front. Even Albert Speer admitted to that. The Germans use a lot of resources to try and stop the round the clock bombings of German cities and military targets..

 

[Grand Mal]

I think the point is without lend lease and the Brits and American help the Soviets would have had a lot more problems manufacturing those tanks and planes.

Yeah, I might not have leaned on that point heavily enough when I said "...with the help of western material." It was a group effort, no doubt but still, on the battlefield...

 

[swing_voter]

I think another thing we got to realize is even though the Western allies took a lot of heat for not opening a second front earlier. The bombing campaign over Germany was a second front. Even Albert Speer admitted to that. The Germans use a lot of resources to try and stop the round the clock bombings of German cities and military targets..

We sent the Soviets Spam, the canned pork meat. When they opened the spam the Soviet troops called it "Opening a new front."

 

[Closer]

If they are from the Soviet archives there's little reason to doubt their accuracy; the Soviets did not lie to themselves on their own records.

Actually they were heavily edited.

Again, this is not really accurate. The Germans had dealt with minefields before, and at Kursk they navigated through them multiple times.

Again they stopped the blitzkreig dead in its tracks.It took a lot of time to creep through them, and that in itself gave the Soviets plenty of advance warning of where they were going to attack, so yes, it's accurate; see Kennedy's discussions on the minefields for more details than Gantz acknowledges or spends time on; mines are boring compared to battles..

What decided Kursk was not the massive armored clashes, nearly off all which the Germans won; it was the newr buckling of their flanks which were under repeated attack that nullified whatever gains the Panzers made.

Yes ,Model's offensives failed, and both Model and Manstein had units withdrawn from their original OB's, and Mannstein himself noted the delays in the offensive probably killed his chances of success. And of course the permanent and critical lack of re-supply and inability to retreat t defensible positions as necessary.

This is also not true; the Soviets did not employ human waves and by 1943 their offensives were marked by repeatedly outsmarting and outmaneuvering the Germans.

They used human wave attacks extensively, and in most cases it took several attacks to win positions as the war went on; even against the 'old men and Hitler Youth' they suffered heavy casualties in their advances to Europe. Armies don't suffer those kinds of casualty rates by 'repeatedly outsmarting and outmaneuvering', especially against essentially static and unsupplied encircled enemies; only armies whose commanders don't care about that stuff and don't need to suffer those kinds of casualties.

 

[Closer]

I think the point is without lend lease and the Brits and American help the Soviets would have had a lot more problems manufacturing those tanks and planes.

They would have lost Moscow, and with it a lot rail access and also likely the industrial city of Gorky, which supplied the northern Fronts with armor, among other materiel. The British and their 125 tanks saved Moscow that winter.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Actually they were heavily edited.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The Soviets did not lie to themselves on their own internal records; in fact their internal records have been used to disprove Soviet public statements and records. Operation Mars is a good example of that.

and that in itself gave the Soviets plenty of advance warning of where they were going to attack,

The Soviets were already aware of where the Germans would attack thanks to the Lucy spy ring and the fact that the the Germans took little effort to actually conceal what they were trying to do.

and Mannstein himself noted the delays in the offensive probably killed his chances of success.

Glantz rather thoroughly showed this to be a myth and just Manstein grandstanding.

Had Mainstein gotten his wish and been able to attack in spring 1943 he would have faced the 1st Tank Army, the 21st, 62nd, and 64th Armies, and the growing strategic reserve at the Don River which included the 24th and 63rd, and 66th Armies.

Meanwhile Manstein would have to work with elements like the XXXXVIII Panzer Corps, which had just 20 tanks in March 1943, and a badly battered SS Panzer Corps which had just suffered 12,000 losses in fighting between February and March.

So the Germans never really had a chance of winning at Kursk. Attacking earlier means the Germans attack with ridiculously under strength forces that had no chance of achieving any major gains, and attacking later also accomplished nothing as demonstrated. Kursk was simply beyond the capacity for the German armies to reach by that point in the war.

inability to retreat t defensible positions as necessary.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, because it's not really applicable to Kursk.

If you're suggesting they should have adopted a more mobile defense as Manstein suggested after the war, again, that has gained traction in some post-war circles but given German capabilities at the time they most likely would have just screwed it up.

They used human wave attacks extensively,

No they didn't. "human waves" is a convenient excuse for armies that are beaten in ways they don't understand, i.e the Soviets in WWII or the Chinese in Korea. The Germans on more than one occasion claimed they were facing 5:1 or even 10:1 odds. In reality the Soviets didn't have the numerical superiority to allow it; they usually hovered around a 2:1 ratio, which didn't significantly change until late 1944.

Armies don't suffer those kinds of casualty rates by 'repeatedly outsmarting and outmaneuvering',

That's exactly what happened in Bagration and Vistula Oder, where the Soviets deceived the Germans into thinking the offensive was coming from somewhere else and then striking elsewhere. The difference between 1941 (when the Soviets couldn't manage two divisions attacking at the same time) to 1944, where they had multiple Fronts attacking simultaneously, speaks to the massive growth in capability the Soviets developed over the course of the war.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Within a few minutes of these films, you can see several people killed ... 200 Soviet cameramen died during the war doing their job.


*

 

[bomberfox]

Sputnik was a little artillery shell with a transponder on it. A modern day rocket hobbyist could do a Sputnik in a weekend. They'd even be able to send back video and other telemetry.

I'm unimpressed.

What else you got?

Essentially starting the space race. Had to get it up there.

 

[bomberfox]

Having the best tanks in the world counts for very little if you do not have gasoline. Then you just have the world’s most intricately engineered road blocks and pillboxes.

Yep. Hitler wasted a metric ton of resources on vanity projects, so much so that his front line forces were complaining.

 

[bomberfox]

The soviets needed to learn more practical lessons after several years of purgings and nonsense like thinking they could win anything by saying zomg tanks are just the tools of imperialists!

 

[bomberfox]

Between 1917 and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the only thing the Soviets ever accomplished was the victory over the Germans.


Prove me wrong.

Beating us the fight for women’s equality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_Russia

 

[Chagos]

Having the best tanks in the world counts for very little if you do not have gasoline. Then you just have the world’s most intricately engineered road blocks and pillboxes.

Germany didn't have the best tanks anyway and on the rare occasions where "Tigers" actually managed to outmaneuver the T34, they didn't have enough of those (nor were ever able to produce in large numbers).

The "Barbarossa" campaign was initiated with a hodge podge of armory, much of it confiscated from nations previously subdued in 1940 in the West, resulting in subsequent mismatch of artillery rounds and any spare parts and with the bulk of supplies being transported by horse carts.

The Tiger itself was a useful tool in the Western rush to the Channel, in the Russian plains it would, unlike the T34, bog itself down in mud, sludge and snow, once the weather turned unfavourable.

Beyond which, once it was shot into a state of non-operation (or simply broke down on its own), it had to be abandoned on account of non-availability of spares. Other than the T34 which, simpler in its design but effective nevertheless, would be cannibalized in great numbers to keep the rest of the whole bunch going.

Alone the (chain) tracks on the Tiger were an abomination to replace (change) and the width of the tracks were an actual hindrance in terrain and weather encountered. The hodge-podge mentioned above became an additional liability.

Barbarossa was calculated on being able to repeat the lightning rush of 1940 in the West, once that failed the Germans were practically done. The rest just lay in details to come.

 

[Chagos]

I think another thing we got to realize is even though the Western allies took a lot of heat for not opening a second front earlier. The bombing campaign over Germany was a second front. Even Albert Speer admitted to that. The Germans use a lot of resources to try and stop the round the clock bombings of German cities and military targets..

But the Allied bombing campaign never slowed German industrial output to the desired extent. In fact that output rose from 1943 onwards, all the way to the end of 1944. The strategy of carpet bombing had its primary effect on the civilian population.

Without the lion's share of German forces tied down in the East, Normandy (the actual and real second front, when it came) would have been much more disastrous for the Allies.

As it were, the beaches were manned by third grade German forces of insufficient numbers and equipment.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

But the Allied bombing campaign never slowed German industrial output to the desired extent. In fact that output rose from 1943 onwards, all the way to the end of 1944. The strategy of carpet bombing had its primary effect on the civilian population.

Without the lion's share of German forces tied down in the East, Normandy (the actual and real second front, when it came) would have been much more disastrous for the Allies.

As it were, the beaches were manned by third grade German forces of insufficient numbers and equipment.

Albert Speer who was the minister of armaments said they had to use so much resources and men to try to protect the German cities and Military complexes that it was like a second front.
Yes in spite of the bombings manufacturing output went up. And yes a bulk of the German armies were tied up in Russia. I'm not disputing that..

But before 1944 the Western allies were not ready for an all out assault on Europe. And the bombings did its job, they tied up German resources.. And especially after the P51 Mustang appeared, they crippled the Lufwaffe..