The Germans were very good at destroying Soviet tanks and the like. They even managed to destroy more tanks than the Soviets produced during the war. But they just kept coming. Add to this the Lend Lease American and British tanks (as well as captured French and German tanks) and you have the never ending Red Army that eventually rolls into Berlin.
The Germans were very good at destroying Soviet tanks and the like. They even managed to destroy more tanks than the Soviets produced during the war. But they just kept coming. Add to this the Lend Lease American and British tanks (as well as captured French and German tanks) and you have the never ending Red Army that eventually rolls into Berlin.
I think the number of destroyed tanks the Soviet suffered are so high because all tanks rendered incapable of combat were listed as destroyed, even if it's only a break on transmission or any thing. That helped the commanders to know how many tanks they can immediately deploy at anytime but actually makes their casualties inflated for 2-3 times more than actual number.
But it's true they kept coming. Even a blown up T-34 without a turret and crew can be towed back to fix a new on and assigned with new crew pretty much the next 3 days after all.
It doesn't matter when the Germans produced only a fraction of what the Soviets could, and that's even excluding what the UK & US were producing. The Germans were buried by an industrial and resource tidal wave.
It doesn't matter when the most Tiger I tanks that were built were 1347 for the entire duration of the war and never that much concentrated anywhere at any given time. Then you get to 35k T-34's produced and 23k T-34/85 produced. In 1944 alone, the Soviets pushed out 10.6k T-34/85's.
Add in a boatload of Shermans scattered around with the Western Allies and even Lend-Leased to the Red Army.
It doesn't matter when the Germans produced only a fraction of what the Soviets could, and that's even excluding what the UK & US were producing. The Germans were buried by an industrial and resource tidal wave.
Germany may not have had a chance of standing up to the production capacity of the United States or British Empire (as a whole), but especially in the period right after Barbarosa kicked off, Germany absolutely could have outproduced the Soviet Union, much of whose pre-war stockpiles of weapons were swallowed up by the rapid advance of the German army, and many of whose major industrial cities were in the west and some of the first to fall. (When you watch a movie like Enemy at the Gates, where there was one rifle per two conscript soldiers, this is what they were trying to convey.) Germany's inability to do so had more to do with overwhelming focus upon heavier "super" tanks as opposed to the Soviets mass-producing good-enough T34s, although there were a few of the heavier KS or IS tanks as well.
Keep in mind, the iconic Russian artillery was basically oversized bottle rockets with HE warheads fired from the back of pickup trucks, with no ability to really aim, but who needs to aim when you just saturation-attack the whole battlefield? "Quantity has a quality all its own."
Also, the USSR received aid from the US and UK and also constantly begged for the opening of a new Western Front to divert German forces from their doorstep.
The Panzer V Panther was probably were the focus should have been. In larger numbers it might have been able to hold against the usually Soviet, British, and American tanks. They would probably still needed the Panzer VI Tiger to deal with the heavier Soviet tanks, but they wouldn't need larger than that in most cases. Or leave those to the tank destroyers like the Jagdpanther.
Put those with the already previously mass produced StuG III and Panzer IVs and you have a reasonably good group of armor at the very least.
Aaah, how utterly underestimated the Soviet military power in first stage of WW2 is.
I'm just noting it here, but Enemy at the Gates is considered more of a propaganda movie than a recreation movie by WW2 history enthusiasts like myself. Before Barbarossa, the wood stick Mosin-Nagant rifle was in large quantity, enough to issue all personnel in Red Army at the peak of their number at the ratio of 1 man 3 rifles. And that's Mosin-Nagant. SVT-40, PPD-40 are also not short on number. Even saying they didn't provide troops the weapons in time doesn't work. If the weapons were kept in storage far from the line, there should not be a problem providing weapons and ammunition. Even conscripts were gathered and organized into units. There and then, they are issued weapons before getting sent to front line. If they are stored near the front, they can be given as the soldiers go into battle, or as they were transported.
Now, in response to "German's rapid advance". I'd like to say, the German only stretched the line of battle, or more exactly, managed to send troops to behind most Soviet units. Yes, the Soviet had a bad time with German tanks. But examples of the Red Army still continue to fight after German forced went past them aren't rare (like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Brest to name the most famous ones). Which means not only did they advanced too quickly, they did a sloppy job on it too, leaving so many resistance pockets for the later units to fight.
With an enemy advance with abandon like that, can the Soviet Red Army, which is still in reorganization fight back effectively? Well, I would say not even the biggest sucker for them would answer yes. But then, what they needed to do was to delay and bleed out their enemies. Operations to move civilians, industrial necessities, machinery or other tools to east of Ural mountain were underway before Barbarossa even started. So of course Soviet's industrial productions would be so low in these time.
And no, the Soviet did not "beg" the Allied to open another front. They requested it since it was a promise as part of Lend&Lease program. By the way, weapons were never the majority of the program. It was rubber and other materials the Soviet could not produce enough in supply to war effort. I'm not denying the Soviet was in dire need of help and they got them from the Allied, ok.
Last thing, those rockets from the back of a truck is nothing to sneeze at. They didn't need to aim because their targeted area pretty much went to dust after being barraged by an unit of 10-20 of those trucks, sending over 100 rockets filled with HE. After releasing the payload, they can just get out again, BEFORE enemies get to them, if they ever manage to survive and recover that is. That's mobile warfare right there with those trucks.
Aaah, how utterly underestimated the Soviet military power in first stage of WW2 is. ... And no, the Soviet did not "beg" the Allied to open another front. ...
Quite right, friend.
I just don't get it that many people despise the power of the Soviet Union. Both Allied and Soviet contributed much efforts to win the anti-fascist war. But some people think that Soviet could collapse without Allied support, that's ridiculous.
I just don't get it that many people despise the power of the Soviet Union. Both Allied and Soviet contributed much efforts to win the anti-fascist war. But some people think that Soviet could collapse without Allied support, that's ridiculous.
Well, they would suffer more of a loss in human and other resources, that's for sure.
First thing, as I mentioned, they had dire needs of rubber and other treated/produced materials. They didn't have exactly enough facilities to produce small and precise materials and weapons. These were to be used on their famous T-34, IS, IL, and other kind of military vehicles. This is a fact that can not be ignored. Without Lend&Lease program, they would have had to fight with at least retreating to Ural mountain. That's what they prepared for. But exactly because of the help they had from the Allied, they were able to fight by the famous "not one step back" with "Moscow is at our back". That's a fact.
Second, part of how the Soviet Union could have been on the winning side of WW2 was Stalin. He made cold but precise decisions, but those were ones that put the people and the land on as utmost important. He's told to have executed opposing powers inside the Union, but as I see it, he was taking those who didn't try to look at reality that a war is coming and keep trying to hoard power instead of preparing for war. After Stalin's death, Khrushchyov started making various decisions that made a mess out of what Stalin built up to that point.
Third.
NNescio said:
Cold War, that's why.
Exactly. Let's say, the Union was strong to take place after the collapse of Russian Empire because Russia at the time was miserable. That makes the ones in highest number, the workers, the ones with nothing in their hands the most powerful force since it's them who could make stuff. But for them to work, the Empire and the bourgeoisie wouldn't do. So that's why they were united as communists.
In WW2, they just set up government, one they believed was for themselves. So the hope was high. That's why people were willing to listen to their government. And WW2 just had perfect timing, for the loss of Germany and victory of the Union along with the Allied.
But then, after some time, it would lose steam. Especially when everything started to go south. The fact is that the Union collapsed on its own. With its leader and people responsible for it. In fact, it was around this time when communism around the Earth got to a halt. Farmers/workers started to stop working as if they don't do it, someone else will do, though they didn't know who that was going to be. The countries that didn't do anything to fix that had their system collapse since it fell to the same trap before communism was a thing. The ones who fixed it either went with something close to capitalism or an adaption of it while still try to maintain communism system.
And well, why people despite them so much is because, they were either on the other side of cold war, or had their countries government collapsed as a result of Cold War. That's kind of only apply to the Western side though. In Russia, the ones who lived as a citizen of the Union still miss it dearly. But wishing for it to come back is truly idiotic and utterly naive, just as Putin said. So yeah, let's just settle it with "the Soviet Union was a nice page of history where we can learn many things from it".
It's just so nostalgic...
Isn't it, Comrades!Ahh...There's nothing to be said, is there...That's because it's a continental state!
I.e. Land- rather than Sea- or Air-focusedOh!Soviet...Co...
Comrade Medium One!?Red MemoriesThis is one that was developed right after WWII, the T-54!S-Sorry!You made her cry...The firepower in particular is amazing.Diorama-style displayIt brings a smile to my face at how the sheer power of it had the West shaking in their boots!Since a great number of Soviet tanks were deployed in the East, even with the collapse of the Union, there's still a lot of tanks still being used to this day!Even now in the 21st Century, there's examples of the T34/85 being used in active battles!Hrm.Just as the rumours said, the Soviets had a veritable bevy of powerful tanks, indeed.And let's not forget that they also had to evolve to slug it out against the German Panzers.But man...
Every last one of these tanks is filled with the memories of our departed Soviet Union!