Stalin's Aggressive Plan in 1941

The story about wrong bullets and old planes is a Soviet propaganda. There has been plenty of new material declassified that shows Red Army armament to be the best in the world at that time.

Many units of Red Army did stand and fight to the last men.

Russians did make Germans run but only after figuring out that Germany was there to enslave them. German Ost policy was a big mistake.

Holding a mother or grandfather hostage so that person will fight does not show great care. It is very effective. France could have made more decisions like that.
NKVD were also used to murder 22,000 Polish prisoners in Katyn Forest.

Russian Army did run. In 1941 it lost 6,290,000 personal weapons. In 1945 it lost 1,040,000 personal weapons. In 1945 the army was larger than in 1941. This leads me to conclude that Soviet soldiers dropped their guns and ran.

Great Patriotic war did not start until Russian people realized there was no other alternative but to fight. Their whole existence was at stake.

 

The only weapons which were better then the what the Germans had when war broke out in the East, were T-34, KV series and the Katyusha, and these new weapons were in their infancy. These weapons made up less then a percent with only 960 T-34's available. The other 17,000 tanks were at best equivalent to a Panzer III.

What other weapons are you referring too?

Oleg, in the first 6 months of the war, Germany suffered 800,000 casualties. This would not have been possible had the Red Army "run away" as you would like to claim.

Yes, many more Russian soldiers died or were taken prisoner but they did put up such a fight that gained immediate respect from their adversaries who until then had never faced such an opponent.

As for taking family members hostage... This is just plain false and a distortion of facts. Yes, im sure isolated incidents happened but from what I read they were mostly in surrounding countries which welcomed the Germans as liberators in mostly Ukraine and the Baltic states and such was used a punishment. In Russia however, this was far from the case. Volunteers were everywhere and in no short supply. The entire country mobilized and everyone contributed to the war effort and did so NOT because they were staring down a barrel of a gun but because they wanted to!

ZA RODINU not ZA STALINA!

In the opening days of Barbarossa, the German war machine over ran hundreds on supply depots. The weapons recovered from these depots are included in these numbers. After all, one cant have more weapons then soldiers who can man them...

If you are familiar with Russian history Oleg, then you should be aware that running from battle is the worst thing you do.... But to run from battle and return with out a weapon especially when there is a shortage?!?!?! well that's just suicidal, unless you get really lucky and find yourself in the SHTRAFBAT battalion......

 

Wait a minute, Slonik.
On September 1, 1939, Germany only had 2,977 tanks.
Almost half (1,445 Pz-I tanks) had no cannon. Other half (1,223 Pz-II tanks) had only pathetic 20-mm cannons. They only had 98 Pz-III with their useless 37-mm cannon, and only 211 Pz-IVs, which had 75-mm short barreled cannon, not designed and not useful for war against other tanks.
By the June 1941, Hitler had in his invading army 3,332, all of them light and all of them obsolete –not one single heavy tank. There were medium ones, which were simply light tanks covered with an extra layer of armor plates.

On the other hand, by the 22 June 1941 Stalin had 23, 925 tanks.
Among them advanced 1400 T-34 and 711 KV.
9,000 T-26 with 45-mm cannon and 2-3 guns

First in the world amphibious tanks (were kept secret for half a century).
2,267 T-37 A and 1,375 T-38, and also T-40.

500 T-28 with 76 mm gun with muzzle velocity of 555 m/s and four or five machine guns, frontal armor of 80 mm.


Red Army had 5,000 BT-7 (high-speed tank, 110 km/h) with 45-mm cannons, BT-7M had a 500-horsepower engine.

Unfortunately, Soviet BT tanks had only one small disadvantage: these tanks could not be effectively used on Soviet territory.
The main advantage of the BT tank was its speed. The BT tank was weapon of aggression. BT tanks were not good for conventional warfare, but they were great in situations when the Red Army suddenly broke into enemy territory. High speed tanks by their nature are a weapon of sudden attack.

I got confused here, which exactly tanks you called obsolete comparing them with Pz-III, considering quantity of course.

You also forgot to mention excellent artillery, without world analogs.
By the June 22, 1941 the Red Army had 15,464 howitzers of all types.
The multiple-launcher rocket weapons BM-8 and MB-13. On August 6, 1941, the Red Army was equipped with a multiple-launcher rocket artillery system, the BM-8-36

And, of course, you didn’t mention thousands of the newest airplanes as well.

 

I think its wrong to assume the russians pre-war were just a bunch of unfortunates.
The russians were aggressively building up their army and they already had fights with japan and finland,they were also were quick enough to lock onto poland when that was up for grabs.
As well as all that when the war was won and everybody said well done its time to go home the soviets said no,we're hanging onto our gains,
The soviets had plans prewar but we'll never know.

 

I would like to thank everyone participating on this forum for their discussions and counter view points.
I’m going to add one more item and then put this one to rest till next time.
I still contend that Russian Army ran in first few days and weeks of war.
Ratio of Prisoners, deserters or missing vs. killed in action in 1941 was:

Ukrainian Southwestern Front 10:1
Belorussian Central Front 11:1

In my opinion If Russian Army stood and fought the casualty rate should’ve been higher.

 

They did both :e few were running(a few because knowing their fate if catched by the NKVD The others were fighting and in massa captured,because the orders were attack and the losses ...had no importance for people like Stalin

 

Weekly Sovjet Casualties in 1941 :162000 in 1945 :164000

 

I wonder what the casualties were pre-Berlin? That had to up the average.

 

Hi Chief,

The problem with the 23,925 tanks is that they only look impressive on paper. In reality, the situation was far different. Many were broken down, lacked a crew, or were in the East and waiting a Japanese attack which never came.

The Military History Journal provides detailed statistics on Soviet armor just prior to the war. As it happens, the Western Defense Districts had only 12,782 tanks of which 2,242 were listed as broken down and “in need of repairs”. The total was comprised of 8,383 tanks in active service, including some in need of minor repairs, as well as 2,157 brand new machines with zero mileage. Notably, these figures are for all five Western Defense Districts, although only three of them – the Baltic Defense District, Western Special Defense District and Kiev Special Defense District – actually covered the Western borders

The number of T-34's which Russia possessed on the eve of war was 957 not 1400.

Yes the numbers seem significant in comparison to the Germans, however, all of these tanks suffered from severe flaws....

As I have stated above, these tanks were spread out all of the place and many were broken down... The biggest flaw would probably be their armor, only 6-13mm!!! Anything and everything which the Germans had could penetrate their metal skin. Not to mention that the T26 and the T28 were also slower then the Panzer III's.

The T-37 and the T-38 were both worse then the Panzer I. They both had less armor and only 1 7.62mm Machine gun as main armament VS the German 2 7.93mm MG-13 machine guns. These two Russian so called tanks, could be pretty much taken out with a machine gun.

The Soviets had 411 T-28 tanks when the Germans invaded in June 1941. Most T-28s were lost during the first two months of the invasion, many of them abandoned after mechanical breakdown.

This tank also suffered from the lack of Armor and breakdowns many were simply abandoned. The T-34 was the replacement.

Quantity none... Quality all. With the exception of the T-34 and the KV series of course.

Yes, the Soviet artillery has always remained impressive. In the beginning however, much of the Soviet war machine suffered from all sorts of shortages, mainly ammunition. Much of the artillery which the Red Army possessed lacked either the caliber of round needed, experienced men to use it or the rounds all together. There were occasions, however, in which they were used properly and were responsible for slowing down the German advance. The first such encounter with Soviet concentrated artillery barrage occurred only 1 week into Barbarossa at which (I believe Timoshenko) under the orders of Zhukov decided to ambush an SS Panzer division causing them heavy casualties and slowing the advance for a week. This ambitious assault around Ukraine, also helped Hitler in making the decision on sending Guderian to secure Kiev.

Yes the famous Katyusha.... A new generation weapon but in very short supply in the beginning.

New yes but piloted by experienced pilots? no. In fact most were taken out before ever taking off... This is how German air superiority occurred which only helped the Luftwaffe focus in on the 6-13mm Soviet tanks.

 

Half of those tanks, if not more, were from the first half of the thirties and therefore outdated. Quality over quantity.

18,000 aircraft? Of all of the countries of WWII, however effective the IL-2 was, Russia had the smallest and weakest airforce, behind all other major powers of the British Royal Airforce and Navy, US Airforce + Navy, Imperial Japanese Navy and Airforce, and even Germany's Luftwaffe.
​

 

May I ask a source?

If the math is correct, then according to you Soviet casualties for 45' would be over 8 million....

Glantz states this...

RED ARMY CASUALTIES


KILLED MISSING OR CAPTURED
1941 = 2,993,803
1942 = 2,993,536
1943 = 1,977,127
1944 = 1,412,335
1945 = 631,633 (or about 12k a week)

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

(Page 13)

 

Lenin said:"Quantity has a quality of its own."

 

lol

 

Tzu SUn said: "Numbers confer no advantage"
"Never Advance on sheer military power alone:

 

Most nations that planned aggression before the war did not develop strategic bomber forces. Only England and America did.
Britain and USA did not plan to invade anybody, thus they needed strategic bomber command.
Armies of Russia, Germany and Japan were planning to operate on foreign territory and only needed tactical bombers. They did have heavy bombers, but never on large scale.

 

The UK and US did not have land borders abutting potential enemies, wouldn't that be a better reason for strategic bomber command?

 

well, there is only one problem in that thonght:
Göring had just fell asleep with the Lutwaffe and the blitzgrieg ong England.
He was (and this ruined his carrear) cronicly ignoring any news or report on this subject, and the Royal Air Force useg this period of ignorance between the german government and the Luftwaffe to become superior in all conditions and make a turn arround in the war in western Europe.

and the Barbarossa operation should have been planned more wiselly.
it should have involved someone hwo actually knew something about Russia' military organization.

It should have been not like a huge front trying to devastate russian heartland, but like one huge group making a path towards Moscow.
If Moscow was down, all of the sheere size of the Red Army would crumble in the East against Japan and in the west against Germany.

Why? Because the Soviet Military connection and information passing Sistem was like a star: Telefone lines all passing through moscow.

This move that no one though of would dismantle the Soviet Army make comunism fall.

But this is just an opinion.

 

Um excuse me but prior to the complete reorganisation during 1942 the VVS consisted of 5 distinct, cumbersome, entirely independent and centralised air forces, one of which was...you guessed it: the strategic air force.
The TB-3 for example belonged to the this air force, and during the mid-thirties due to this particular model in fact, the USSR was reported by British and American journalists to have an eminent and highly developed strategic air force, possibly the most advanced in the world. In 1940 it was being equipped with the DB-series (Il-4) which with a range just shy of 4000km was the longest ranging "heavy" bomber in Europe at the time, again giving Soviets pride of position in the realm of strategic air forces. And let's not forget the Pe-8 which along with the DB-3/Il-4 took part in the famous Berlin raids of 1941-42, this four engine bomber was probably the first modern heavy in service. This was all part of the VVS branch known as "the strategic air force" and also included special aircraft such as paratroop conversions or any other long range strategic role.

The fast bombers of the short range bomber air force, the SB-series even still were not tactical bombers, they were medium bombers roughly akin to the German Heinkel and even they had a better range than that German model. This air force was designed to be fast, used near the front (but not at forward air fields) to provide good defence penetration of enemy air defences near their front lines and level bomb troop concentrations and strategic targets. This was the air force which was virtually decimated within the first two weeks of the invasion. This air force was called the "short range bomber air force" and was also a strategic arm of the VVS.

It was the attack-bomber air force, which also included fighter-bombers in addition to attack models and light bombers like the Su-2 and Il-2 which was the tactical bomber force. This air force, along with the fighter air force and the communications, transport and liason air force were the tactical air forces of the VVS.

But like I said the entire VVS was completely restructured during 1942, and its command decentralised for effective tactical and independent field operations. This was when emphasis shifted away from the strategic air force, and it was first felt in early 1943 though a hint of it began at Stalingrad.

 

Japan had no land borders as well. Every country that was planning to fight on its neighbor’s territory did not have well developed strategic air force. There is simply no need for it.
Germany’s lack of Statigic Bombers prevented them from disrupting Russian industry. Germany underestimated the size of Russia and how far back Russians would move their tank factories. Russians did have long range heavy bombers, but many were outdated or were seldom used in mass like Western Allies did.

 

Before the war years Russians did work on heavy long distance aircraft. They even broke a number of endurance records.

How ever their strategic bomber development was not even close in comparison to the tactical aircraft that Russians needed to bring Europe to its knees.

TB-3 was from the beginning an outdated and very slow airplane. My grandfather talked about seeing a formation of Russian bombers being destroyed by one Messerschmitt. I suspect they were slow TB-3 type.

ANT- 40/SB was a very successful medium bomber during the Spanish Civil War. It was outdated by 1941.

DB-3(IL-4) was a medium and not a heavy bomber. It did have a very good range for its size.

PE-8 was a Heavy Strategic Bomber, but less than 100 were manufactured. This number does not constitute a Strategic Bomber Force. The plane was used to do propaganda bombing of Berlin number of times. It was more famous for flying Molotov to London and DC.