How Soviet Russia won WW2 in a nut shell: Make a tank every 1 second, have it run in the next 4 and repeat.
Really, I just associated to the fact how fast USSR get their weapons, supplies and troops ready seeing this. And I by no mean belittling what they did, ok? ← I bet without this claim, some people will start a war with me.
How Soviet Russia won WW2 in a nut shell: Make a tank every 1 second, have it run in the next 4 and repeat.
I've seen a number of sources claim that Stalin himself remarked, regarding this strategy, "Quantity has a quality all its own." I suspect that's apocryphal--I don't think Stalin was that pithy--but it's also true. :)
I've seen a number of sources claim that Stalin himself remarked, regarding this strategy, "Quantity has a quality all its own." I suspect that's apocryphal--I don't think Stalin was that pithy--but it's also true. :)
I've heard Stalin quoted as saying a number of pithy things, so either he was, or propaganda made him out to be.
How Soviet Russia won WW2 in a nut shell: Make a tank every 1 second, have it run in the next 4 and repeat.
Really, I just associated to the fact how fast USSR get their weapons, supplies and troops ready seeing this. And I by no mean belittling what they did, ok? ← I bet without this claim, some people will start a war with me.
Well it wasn't hard to send unarmed men and trashcans to their death.
For what it's worth, russian tanks were more expensive and significantly sturdier than the american one. Or at least, the one that the USA sold by the thousand to the USSR.
I've seen a number of sources claim that Stalin himself remarked, regarding this strategy, "Quantity has a quality all its own." I suspect that's apocryphal--I don't think Stalin was that pithy--but it's also true. :)
Because quantity is in fact a great quality like any other. Easy to make, can be produced quickly, can be used for many purposes and cheap to produce is exactly how both USSR and America prepared their weaponry at the time. And if a Tiger can destroy 10 T-34, there's still 100 more, then 100 more IS-2 after them, then 100 ISU-152 after them all and then even more T-34 to deal with. Let's see if there's enough Tigers to deal with them.
dakight said:
Well it wasn't hard to send unarmed men and trashcans to their death.
Say that to the 2 Tigers crewmen that were done in by 1 mealy bug of a T-60 driven by 2 farmers in operation Spark. If you are going to talk about Enemy at the Gate, I'll just say chop-stick Mosin-Nagant was 3 times more in number than Red Army total personnel at its peak. There was never a shortage of arms. A shortage of officers to fight there was though.
For what it's worth, russian tanks were more expensive and significantly sturdier than the american one. Or at least, the one that the USA sold by the thousand to the USSR.
... for values of "sold" that include not getting paid for them after September 1941.
Say that to the 2 Tigers crewmen that were done in by 1 mealy bug of a T-60 driven by 2 farmers in operation Spark. If you are going to talk about Enemy at the Gate, I'll just say chop-stick Mosin-Nagant was 3 times more in number than Red Army total personnel at its peak. There was never a shortage of arms. A shortage of officers to fight there was though.
After how many wretched before the German couldn't hold against sheer force again? And sending men with stick yet without small stones don't count as armed, but that would be just me. The USSR was good and brutality with sheer force, and i will give you that. Calling them ready is what i got problem with, they just hold it off tills they or the other side died out first.
After how many wretched before the German couldn't hold against sheer force again? And sending men with stick yet without small stones don't count as armed, but that would be just me. The USSR was good and brutality with sheer force, and i will give you that. Calling them ready is what i got problem with, they just hold it off tills they or the other side died out first.
You are making some real good statements there. Anyone get a gun gets 9 clips of ammunition for rifle, 5 clips of ammunition for sub-machine gun and 3 clips of ammunition for machine gun.
The impression that USSR soldiers/Red Army's soldiers weren't ready for the war was more like they got a lot of officers and generals who thought they could become allies with Hitler, while in fact, Hitler was never going to leave USSR alone. Stalin and many other marshalls/generals knew. And they decided to deal with the ones who thought of allying with Hitler or even betraying USSR for Hitler with a purge. This made the army short on officers and generals, who are always more important in a battle than a soldier (in general senses, not in lives or death count sense). In oppose to that, German army, while restricted by a treaty, got around it with training only high ranking officers and generals before the war and only drafted men right before the war.
Besides, in 1941 and 1942, Red Army was more in a role of buying time so machinaries and civilians can get away to the other side of the Ural. Of course they would be fighting and reatreating at the same time.
Another misconception is that German front line wasn't quite a front line. It was more of an arrow piercing through woods. German tanks and motorized forces advanced too fast, leaving resistance pockets all over place for later infantries marching on foot to deal with. That's not to mention units that were never even surrounded. So, the German got the speed, but also have so much less chances of reinforcements and chances to fight a long war. Do that in France and they can get something, since French army was away on Belgium's soil. Do that in the Motherland of Russia? Napoleon couldn't do it, what made you think the Nazis were any different?
Oh, adding a little bit, guess what other war was fought with that kind of unstable front line? It's Vietnam War. And you know who won?
So we are all agreed that USSR was just good at holding it off tills either they or their enemy died off first? Good.
And the Vietnam War, which i believe you mean the one between North VN, China and USSR vs SouthVN, US and allies, didn't have the unstable front line as the German had in Eastern Front, due to the good jobs the North VN did in Truong Son, Laos, Cambodia and on the sea. Unless you are to believe that it was South VN who was the offensive side and had lack of supplies.
And the Vietnam War, which i believe you mean the one between North VN, China and USSR vs SouthVN, US and allies, didn't have the unstable front line as the German had in Eastern Front, due to the good jobs the North VN did in Truong Son, Laos, Cambodia and on the sea. Unless you are to believe that it was South VN who was the offensive side and had lack of supplies.
He's referring to the US as being functionally like an offensive army that constantly advanced on villages, destroyed the "resistance" there, then moved on, only to have Vietcong forces retake the villages within hours of leaving. Yes, the US wasn't technically the invading force overall, but by and large, they were trying to "take" territory on their side before failing to actually hold it against the guerilla insurgents.
Of course, the whole "guerilla insurgents" part is the key one, there. Against all but the most ludicrously thorough of advances that either kills, detains, or searches and/or interrogates every "civilian", there's going to be a chance for an enemy who is deliberately setting up for a guerilla war to get troops behind your front line as your front line advances. Even getting your main infantry in there, and even establishing some sort of governing authority (ala Iraq) isn't enough to stop a determined insurgency from forming.
Aye, and as i said, the North VN did a damn fine job keeping VC in South VN supplied. So to me it would be more like in late WW2, when the German struggled to hold any territories they had in Euro against two sides and guerilla forces, rather than in Eastern Front.
So we are all agreed that USSR was just good at holding it off tills either they or their enemy died off first? Good.
I believe you are twisting my words. Great job on it by the way.
I said the Soviet knew they could not handle the German invading force with all of their internal problems. Yes. But they did not rely on just holding out until enemy is too worn out to fight. They fought to buy time and make sure they can prepare for a war against Germany and its allies. That's what I said. And fact is, Eastern Front showed Soviet forces started to fight back soon enough, let's say it took the duration of Barbarossa, to not go into the details. Do notice that it took how long for Red Army to reach Berlin compared to what German and allies' forces reached outer Moscow in. Only show how lousy a job they did as they advanced.
Of course, my comparison of Eastern Front and Vietnam War is not a good one. I only wanted to point out Soviet armed forces, both resistance and troops was left behind the "front line", emphasis on troops. As, NWSiaCB pointed out, insurgences and resistances are always to be expected, but regular troops? Come on!
By the way, it's not just North VN doing a good job at supplying Vietcong. It's the civilians themselves supplying for Vietcong too. Food and medicine for sure, but they also stole South Vietnam's weapons, ammunition to send those to Vietcong. All the more reason my comparison is just out right stupid.
The impression that USSR soldiers/Red Army's soldiers weren't ready for the war was more like they got a lot of officers and generals who thought they could become allies with Hitler, while in fact, Hitler was never going to leave USSR alone. Stalin and many other marshalls/generals knew. And they decided to deal with the ones who thought of allying with Hitler or even betraying USSR for Hitler with a purge. This made the army short on officers and generals, who are always more important in a battle than a soldier (in general senses, not in lives or death count sense). In oppose to that, German army, while restricted by a treaty, got around it with training only high ranking officers and generals before the war and only drafted men right before the war.
What is written below may be incorrect, as I do not know English and translate with the help of Google.
The point is not even that the military command of the USSR was expecting an alliance with Germany. It counted on the fact that the German command would not turn out to be so reckless that it would attack the USSR before the British campaign was over and the Soviet Union would have a head start in time to prepare for a war that was absolutely expected for the Soviet people (they did not only know that when exactly the attack will take place), since anti-Nazi propaganda in the USSR has been conducted since the mid-30s.
What is written below may be incorrect, as I do not know English and translate with the help of Google.
The point is not even that the military command of the USSR was expecting an alliance with Germany. It counted on the fact that the German command would not turn out to be so reckless that it would attack the USSR before the British campaign was over and the Soviet Union would have a head start in time to prepare for a war that was absolutely expected for the Soviet people (they did not only know that when exactly the attack will take place), since anti-Nazi propaganda in the USSR has been conducted since the mid-30s.
No. The point I was trying to make was: a great number of Red Army's leaders sought to make peace with Hitler. This was the thing going on with Europe as a whole, even after shots were fired. The British overestimated German strength while Germany understimated British and Soviet forces. Germany made the assumption that Britain and Soviet Union would quickly roll over and negotiate with them just as France, Germany's number one enemy at the time did with a short campaign and scare tactics. But the opposing powers all thought that Germany would be a formidable foe so they either tried to buy time or straight off talking about peace negotiation.
People often forget, but Germany before WW2 was a force to not mess around with. Evident enough is how the Reichsmark actually over priced British Pound. Germany was never looked down upon at the grand scale, so the idea of opposing them was rather hard to find. Yet, was the inavitable choice of the time.