Fall of France

[Toby]

Airborne ops ,just a quick one.

Bessarabia 1940.Moscow offensive 1941.Dnepr crossing at Kanev in 1943.Manchuria &Korea1945.

Sources please....A book maybe? I mean a Parachute led operation on the scale of at least Eben Emael would be good. I know the Soviets invested in this warfare at least after WW2 but I seriously can see nothing during the war of any significance, in fact I can't see anything...

[Bigfella]

You're trying to pretend that the Soviet armed forces were just as good as the Germans. They were not. The benefit of hindsight makes that a fact.

Until the late 1930s their land forces were better than the Germans. Better tanks in larger numbers and a land warfare doctrine that was arguably superior to what Germany had. From about 1943 onwards they were also better. Unfortunately its impossible to convey that to people who have had their heads filled by several generations of authors who treated the Germans as supermen and Russians as crude peasants who by some magical accident developed some really good tanks. Some attitudes die incredibly hard it seems.

The origin of this discussion was the idea that everyone else had to 'catch up' to the Germans. I have simply been pointing out that the Russians were ahead of the Germans when it came to land warfare doctrines and probably influenced the Germans more than the Germans influenced them. I've spelled all this out in quite sufficient detail for you to put the pieces together if you choose. If you can be bothered to read & comprehend that then I'm happy to have a discussion. If you want to continue to throw off misrepresentations and content free one liners then there is no point.

[Bigfella]

Good luck, I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered. You'll get insult after insult and a I know everything attitude, with very little substance. I've trawled through all my books and still can't find anything about any Soviet Parachute drop behind enemy lines. All you'll get are events that most people know about if they're half interested and gross exaggerations of how influential Soviet military strategy was on German thinking. .....and how he thinks hes going to teach anybody anything with a crap attitude is beyond me! He reminds me of teachers I use to get in the 1980's. Basically there attitude was shut up and listen or a throw the board rubber at you or worse. KIds don't know they're born these days....Just be thankful all my teachers are either dead, retired or in jail!

I've passed the point in life where I have the patience to keep explaining things to people who clearly aren't listening. I do know more about this than you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. The fact that you are unaware of any Soviet parachute drops behind enemy lines simply confirms my assessment. Your books clearly don't contain enough information and some of them are very clearly out of date. Rather than whining about my lack of patience, try doing some research.

[Gun Boat]

Until the late 1930s their land forces were better than the Germans. Better tanks in larger numbers and a land warfare doctrine that was arguably superior to what Germany had. From about 1943 onwards they were also better. Unfortunately its impossible to convey that to people who have had their heads filled by several generations of authors who treated the Germans as supermen and Russians as crude peasants who by some magical accident developed some really good tanks. Some attitudes die incredibly hard it seems.

The origin of this discussion was the idea that everyone else had to 'catch up' to the Germans. I have simply been pointing out that the Russians were ahead of the Germans when it came to land warfare doctrines and probably influenced the Germans more than the Germans influenced them. I've spelled all this out in quite sufficient detail for you to put the pieces together if you choose. If you can be bothered to read & comprehend that then I'm happy to have a discussion. If you want to continue to throw off misrepresentations and content free one liners then there is no point.

So the Russians were better than the Germans until the 30s? On what basis? Numbers?

They also had better tanks? You mean the tanks like the T34 and KV1 that had catastrophic situational awareness issues that destroyed the fighting ability of the vehicle despite being well armored/armed and mobile? The same ones that littered the eastern front? And better land warfare doctrine that led to Russian units taking massive men and material losses?

The Russians didn't get better after 43. They got more numerous. Their fighting ability improved throughout the war but no greater than any other force.
They beat the Germans on the eastern front strategically by out numbering them. Their commanders showed no brilliance on the battlefield other than losing men and equipment.

Now having a bigger army is no bad thing. It usually means you win.

[Toby]

I've passed the point in life where I have the patience to keep explaining things to people who clearly aren't listening. I do know more about this than you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. The fact that you are unaware of any Soviet parachute drops behind enemy lines simply confirms my assessment. Your books clearly don't contain enough information and some of them are very clearly out of date. Rather than whining about my lack of patience, try doing some research.

and then you actually recommended a book to read or a source or something. I've reached the point where I don't believe a word anybody says about anything when they don't produce at least a source to back it up with.

[Toby]

So the Russians were better than the Germans until the 30s? On what basis? Numbers?

They also had better tanks? You mean the tanks like the T34 and KV1 that had catastrophic situational awareness issues that destroyed the fighting ability of the vehicle despite being well armored/armed and mobile? The same ones that littered the eastern front? And better land warfare doctrine that led to Russian units taking massive men and material losses?

The Russians didn't get better after 43. They got more numerous. Their fighting ability improved throughout the war but no greater than any other force.
They beat the Germans on the eastern front strategically by out numbering them. Their commanders showed no brilliance on the battlefield other than losing men and equipment.

Now having a bigger army is no bad thing. It usually means you win.

Out numbering them and having a complete disregard for the lives of their own troops, something which they have demonstrated again and again.
Soviet tanks initially used a flag system to communicate with each other and by 43 still only had a Receiver with the command vehicle being the only tank with a Receiver and transceiver... when that got hit, this would greatly increase the chances of the others following the same fate.

[Toby]

Right I've found these two, both disasters. After the drop at Kanev they seem to have come to the same conclusion as Hitler after Crete

1. The Vyazma Airborne Operation was a Red Army airborne landing in the rear of German lines during the Battles of Rzhev. It took place from 18 January to 28 February 1942.The objective of the airborne landing was to help troops of the Kalinin Front and Western Front to encircle and destroy Army Group Centre. The airborne operation was unsuccessful and resulted in the loss of most of the troops landed


2. The Soviets deployed a significant number of airborne troops near Kanev in September 1943. Unfortunately the lightly armed troops were unable to get to their supply containers and they landed amidst some newly arrived German units who inflicted heavy casualties and broke up the operation. After these losses in some elite units, such large scale airborne operations were not attempted by the Soviets again.

I don't mind being wrong and yes I am fully aware that History taught when I was a kid was greatly biased. Which is why I enjoy finding out stuff I never knew about

[Bigfella]

and then you actually recommended a book to read or a source or something. I've reached the point where I don't believe a word anybody says about anything when they don't produce at least a source to back it up with.

I'm not your research service. Since I started this exchange with you I've gone online just to make sure I'm getting this stuff right. There are plenty of quality sources available with the simplest of google searches. It doesn't require any great magic, just a willingness to look, read and learn. I've given you quite enough information for you to track down the good stuff. You managed to do it with the airborne stuff, its just as easy with the rest.

[Bigfella]

Right I've found these two, both disasters. After the drop at Kanev they seem to have come to the same conclusion as Hitler after Crete

1. The Vyazma Airborne Operation was a Red Army airborne landing in the rear of German lines during the Battles of Rzhev. It took place from 18 January to 28 February 1942.The objective of the airborne landing was to help troops of the Kalinin Front and Western Front to encircle and destroy Army Group Centre. The airborne operation was unsuccessful and resulted in the loss of most of the troops landed


2. The Soviets deployed a significant number of airborne troops near Kanev in September 1943. Unfortunately the lightly armed troops were unable to get to their supply containers and they landed amidst some newly arrived German units who inflicted heavy casualties and broke up the operation. After these losses in some elite units, such large scale airborne operations were not attempted by the Soviets again.

I don't mind being wrong and yes I am fully aware that History taught when I was a kid was greatly biased. Which is why I enjoy finding out stuff I never knew about

There was another op in 1942 or 43 with over 1500 paratroops. There were numerous ops with 500 or less right up to the end of the war either seizing objectives or causing diversions. Other than that paratroops fought throughout the war (from Khalkin Gol to be precise) as infantry.

[Bigfella]

So the Russians were better than the Germans until the 30s? On what basis? Numbers?

They also had better tanks? You mean the tanks like the T34 and KV1 that had catastrophic situational awareness issues that destroyed the fighting ability of the vehicle despite being well armored/armed and mobile? The same ones that littered the eastern front? And better land warfare doctrine that led to Russian units taking massive men and material losses?

The Russians didn't get better after 43. They got more numerous. Their fighting ability improved throughout the war but no greater than any other force.
They beat the Germans on the eastern front strategically by out numbering them. Their commanders showed no brilliance on the battlefield other than losing men and equipment.

Now having a bigger army is no bad thing. It usually means you win.

I've already supplied most of the answers to your questions in previous posts. Until I see some evidence you can be bothered reading & understanding those posts I'm not going to spend any further effort filling in the blanks for you. If you want a discussion you'll need to make a tiny bit of effort.

[Toby]

There was another op in 1942 or 43 with over 1500 paratroops. There were numerous ops with 500 or less right up to the end of the war either seizing objectives or causing diversions. Other than that paratroops fought throughout the war (from Khalkin Gol to be precise) as infantry.

Thanks, On a serious note, there isn't much out there. Even when you find stuff its very brief, certainly in the English language, I have to say most of my history books of which I collected over the last 30 years are in the main British, American, German, Dutch etc...Nothing Russian which I am fully aware doesn't give a balanced perspective. Just saying and acknowledging your point on ignorance of which you can easily apply to many topics. I'm sure its just as bad on the Russian side though...

[Toby]

I'm not your research service. Since I started this exchange with you I've gone online just to make sure I'm getting this stuff right. There are plenty of quality sources available with the simplest of google searches. It doesn't require any great magic, just a willingness to look, read and learn. I've given you quite enough information for you to track down the good stuff. You managed to do it with the airborne stuff, its just as easy with the rest.

LOL, No your not and thanks pal. I'll quit yanking your chain now.

[Bigfella]

Thanks, On a serious note, there isn't much out there. Even when you find stuff its very brief, certainly in the English language, I have to say most of my history books of which I collected over the last 30 years are in the main British, American, German, Dutch etc...Nothing Russian which I am fully aware doesn't give a balanced perspective. Just saying and acknowledging your point on ignorance of which you can easily apply to many topics. I'm sure its just as bad on the Russian side though...

You don't need to find Russian historians, there are also Western historians or writers who seriously study Russian operations. Some of the best work has been done in the US, in particular by the US Military. Google 'Russian Airborne Operations WW2' and you will find what is basically a book on the first page. If you want to learn about Russian doctrine in general follow that particular lead a bit further.

[Toby]

You don't need to find Russian historians, there are also Western historians or writers who seriously study Russian operations. Some of the best work has been done in the US, in particular by the US Military. Google 'Russian Airborne Operations WW2' and you will find what is basically a book on the first page. If you want to learn about Russian doctrine in general follow that particular lead a bit further.

Cheers, not stuff you can easily find at the book shop. I use to be in a military book club when I was a teenager. Studied the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS formations...nothing political just interested in events, equipment etc never really got to grips with the Russian stuff apart from Sven Hassel books..(joking)lol although I am aware of their ventures into the first airborne troops, looks quite precarious being fastened to a plane wing.

[Triple C]

The Russians got a bloody nose in 1941 in spite of the superlative quality of their tanks, not because of it. A perusal of writers such as Zaloga, Glantz or Jantz readily conveys the impression that well-handled T-34s and KV-1s were a terror on the battlefield, and the Red Army's self-inflicted logistics and leadership flaws, not their technology, accounted for their defeat in tactical engagements.

For example, a majority of divisional tank engagements during Op. Barbarossa Jantz related to in Panzer Truppen Vol 1 show that while the Germans usually prevailed in tank combat against the Russians, they did so by throwing an entire Panzer battalion or regiment at a handful of T-34s at a time, with extremely desperate tactics and great difficulty. What was impressive about the Germans were the near suicidal courage of their Panzer crews and motorized infantry. The stereotype of commanders throwing men and machines at a field problem applied almost as well to Germans as the Russians, to my way of thinking.

As well, the Russians bungled their logistics and march planning, with the result that for about half a year, they could not manage putting more than a handful of T-34s or KV-1s at the point of contact. When the Russians attacked in the Winter Offensive of '41, the situation was turned around, and in Jantz's select texts it seems that facing an even number of T-34s was considered a very dicy situation for Pz-III and Pz-IV units.

Mostly, the Russian logistics during this period was atrocious. Zaloga noted that many T-34s went to the front with only machine gun bullets, some with just high-explosive shells for their main gun and many broke down or ran out of gas for a host of easily avoidable issues. I'd chalk it up to the totalitarian regime's obsession with parade and appearance, which probably infected post-purge Russia to a greater extent than Nazi Germany during this time.

For situational awareness, even the god-awful Frech S-35 and Char-1 could be formidable at the right circumstances. Those were tanks with single-man turrets; the T-34 had two-men turrets. Colonel Kühn, who fought at Hannut leading the 3rd Panzer Brigade said: "The feelings of superiority by our panzertruppen over the opponent is based primarily on our better combat morale, secondarily on our superior firepower." The advantages of the gun-armed panzers over French tanks he cited were bigger guns and better mobility. Those advantages were not present when they were up against T-34s or KVs.

As for doctrine, the Soviet deep battle doctrine was a fully-fleshed out system of mechanized warfare that was comparable to the German system. But Tugashevski and most of Red Army generals who wasn't a brown-noser got purged by Stalin. The military purge would go on in earnest until Russia's military humiliation by Finland, and a goodly number of the able Soviet commanders who performed well during the war with Germany were the new blood whose career as general officers took place after the purge. Rokossovsky, they said, was fished out from the Gulag sans his teeth and fingernails...

I would close up by noting that, though the Russians had a well-deserved reputation of being insensitive to losses, their best generals were quite cunning and had outfoxed their opposite numbers in the OKH. The Germans had failed to assess Russian intent in every major battle since Kursk, so even taking their material superiority in full stock, how bad could the Russian generals be?