Yep.
I was actually thinking about taking Sarmatian post apart but lets keep it simple.
The pattern he describes is basicly how the doctrines develop, I never said anything else.
No idea what the complains are about, as he himself says that soviet losses were considerably higher, even still in 39.
I really hope it's some languagebarrier problem, as I can see no understanding of the modern research he mentions, or the overall situation of the soviet military in 1939 and onwards in his post.
So please no unnecessary arguing over problems that don't exist.
It's your game. You guys do whatever you want, but for me, it is a problem if as Germany, I have far bigger problem defeating France than USSR.
We're all passionate about WW2 here naturally, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I'm most passionate about the Eastern Front and Wehrmacht-Red Army conflict and I have spent many hours researching it, as others here have probably done.
By modern research I mean post Cold War research. Most of what we know prior to that came from German side, with most of that coming from three sources: Mellentin, Manstein and Guderian. There were other, of course but those three were primary. Two of those three are recognized "masters" of operational warfare and have been lauded as most deserving for German fantastic performance in the early years of the war. It comes naturally that we should take heed of what they have to say but they both have something in common - they focused on what happened 1941-1943. Both "Achtung Panzers" and "Lost Victories" only barely mention 1944 and 1945. Both Guderian and Manstein were moved from positions of prominence by that time and they didn't even try to cover the series of decisive defeats they received from their opponent. Even more, they lacked operational data from the other side so their conclusions weren't cross referenced. Those two works were by far most influental in the general image of the performance of the Red Army. Unimaginative, rigid, inflexible, with poor leadership, poor understanding of strategy, mass frontal assaults... are only some of the common stereotypes attributed to the Red Army...
But, it is 2012 now, Cold War is long over and there is no reason to limit ourselves to only German researchers. Usually, I like to point out Glantz as an example of more modern research. He's American, an expert on the subject, and he used both German and Soviet sources, and most importantly he used them in conjuction.
He stayed away from questionable research and he used Krivosheev's research, who pretty much set the standard for anything about Red Army and numbers.
A few paragraph from Glantz
If American wartime impressions of combat on the Eastern Front were vague and imprecise, there was
some improvement in that picture during the first decade and a half after war ended. However, during
that period a new tendency emerged that colored almost all future works describing events on the
Eastern Front. That tendency was to view operations in the East through German eyes and virtually
only German eyes. From 1945 to 1958 essentially all works written in English or translated into
English about events on the Eastern Front were written by German authors, many of whom were
veterans of combat in the East, works moreover, based solely on German sources.
This German period of war historiography embraced two genre of works. The first included memoirs
written during those years when it was both necessary and sensible to dissociate oneself from Hitler or
Hitler's policies. Justifiable or not, the writers of these memoirs did just that and essentially laid blame
on Hitler for most strategic, operational, and often tactical failures. Thus, an apologetic tone
permeated these works. Officers who shared in the success of Hitler's armies refused to shoulder
responsibility for the failures of the same armies. Only further research will judge the correctness of
their views.
The first of the postwar memoirs to appear in English was the by now classic work, Panzer Leader, by Heinz Guderian.4 Guderian's work, which casts considerable light on strategic and operational
decisions while Guderian was a panzer group commander in 1941 and later when he became Chief of
Staff in 1944, set the tone for future treatment by German generals of Hitler's leadership. Guderian
laid at Hitler's feet principal responsibility for all failures of the German Army and for the dismantling
of the German General Staff. The German General Staff was portrayed as both used and abused by
Hitler throughout the war. Guderian's message was best conveyed by the chapter heading he chose for
the section of the Polish War of 1939 which read, "The Beginning of the Disaster." As in most
subsequent works, Guderian included little Soviet operational data.
One of the most influential postwar German war critiques was General von Mellenthin's Panzer
Battles published ln English in 1956.5 Mellenthin's work, an operational/tactical account of
considerable merit, echoed the criticism of Hitler voiced by Guderian and showed how Hitler's
adverse influence affected tactical operations. Beyond this, Mellenthin's work adopted a didactic
approach in order to analyze operations and hence educate officers. Throughout the book are
judgments concerning military principles and assessments of the nature of the Soviet fighting men and
officers, most of which have been incorporated into the current "body of truth" about Soviet military
capabilities. Hence, Mellenthin made such judgments as these: the Russian soldier is tenacious on
defense, inflexible on offense, subject to panic when facing unforeseen eventualities, an excellent
night fighter, a master of infiltra- tion, a resolute and implacable defender of bridgeheads, and
neglectful of the value of human life.6 As was in the case of Guderian, Mellenthin's experiences
against the Red Army encompassed the period before spring 1944 and reflected impressions acquired
principally during years of German success.
Mellenthln's work, written without benefit of archival materials, tended to treat tactical cases without
fully describing their operational context. Opposing Soviet units, as in Guderian's work, were faceless.
Mellenthin's classic account of XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' operations along the Chir River after the
encirclement of German 6th Army at Stalingrad stands as an example of the weaknesses of his book.7
In it he describes the brilliant operations of that panzer corps in fending off assaults by Soviet 5th
Tank Army's units which included first the 1st Tank Corps and later 5th Mechanized Corps. On 7-8
December 1942, 11ch Panzer Division parried a thrust of 1st Tank Corps at State Farm 79 while on 19
December, 11th Panzer checked the advance of 5th Mechanized Corps. Despite the vivid accounts of
these tactical successes, Mellenthin only in passing describes the operational disaster that provided a
context for these fleeting tactical successes. For, in fact, while Soviet 5th Tank Army occupied
XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' attention, to the northwest Soviet forces overwhelmed and destroyed the
Italian 8th Army and severely damaged Army Detachment Hollidt. Moreover, Mellenthin did not
mention (probably because he did not know) that Soviet 1st Tank Corps had been in nearly continuous operation since 19 November and was under strength and worn down when it began its march across the Chir.8
Similar flaws appear elsewhere in Mellenthin's work, many of which result from a lack of knowledge
of opposing Soviet forces or their strengths.9
Of equal importance to Mellenthin's work, but written from a higher level perspective, was the
memoir of Eric von Manstein entitled Lost Victories.10 An important work by an acknowledged
master at the operational level of war, Manstein's book viewed operations from 1941 to early 1944 at
the strategic and operational level. Manstein's criticism of Hitler reflected active disputes which
ultimately led to Manstein's dismissal as Army Group South commander. Manstein's account of
operations is accurate although again Soviet forces are faceless, and opposing force ratios are in
conflict with those shown by archival materials of Fremde Heeres 0st (Foreign Armies East), Gehlen's
organizations, and of the OKH (the Army High Command).11 Again Soviet superiorities are overstated. These three basic memoirs dominated historiography of World War II in the 1950's and continue to be treated as authoritative works today even as unexploited archival materials challenge an increasing number of facts cited in the three works. Other works appeared in English during this period but were generally concerned with individual battles or operations.12 Whether coinci- dental or not, most of these unfavorable accounts of Soviet combat performance appealed to an American audience conditioned by the Cold War years. Notably, few German commanders of the later war years, a period so unpleasant for German fortunes, wrote memoirs; and the works of those who did (for example, General Heinrici) still remain as untranslated manuscripts in the archives.
I could now go into great detail, explaining the general state of the Red Army from Russian Civil war to 1945 and onwards, but the post is too long as is.
Considering losses, from mid-45 (after Kursk), German irreplaceable losses tended to be on par or higher than Soviet and the gap only widened in '44 and '45. The glaring example being Iasy-Kishinev (August '44) where Soviets forces suffered cca. 67,000 casualties and Axis more than 400,000. If you are interested, I will consult the books and give you more examples (eh, when I was younger, I could keep much more information in my head ).
In conclusion I want to say that I'm not trying to argue with you guys for the point of arguing (you didn't make my favourite nation X the best, la la la). I'm genuinely trying to offer help. The eastern front was THE front in WW2 and it should receive special attention. If you aren't interested in a discussion, just say so.
Regards,
Sarmatian.
- 1