[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1608527944532.jpg (65.54 KB, 604x381, nigelaskey.jpg)

 No.220

This guy Is called nigel askey, and is apparently a legitimate historian. He published a paper debunking TIK's claim that the K/D ratio of the soviets during WW was 1/1.6, instead claiming that the soviets lost over 4 more times as many combatants as the Germansduring WW2. Here is his paper. I'm not a qualified historian and I dont have access to acrhives or time to research, so I can't debunk him.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf

I checked out his website and alsthough he does seem to be knowledgeable, he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history" in WW2, and the allies covered up how technologically and tactically inferior they were to the germans.

 No.221

>>220
https://www.reddit.com/r/RebuttalTime/comments/9f5oiu/nigel_askey_debunks_tik_on_germansoviet_loss/

Here are prowestern redditor historians claiming that russian historians are censored, and the soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals.

 No.222

>he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history" in WW2, and the allies covered up how technologically and tactically inferior they were to the germans.
Two red flags. Why do you care so much?

>muh victor history

lmao Franz Halder wrote a lot of the history - an actual loser who Wehraboos constantly whine about and defer to when they say Hitler should have listened to his generals. This faggot thought he was going to take Moscow and the Soviets would immediately surrender like it was Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Halder

>muh super advanced superior army

&ltThe WWII German Army was 80% Horse Drawn; Business Lessons from History
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-wwii-german-army-was-80-horse-drawn-business-lessons-from-history/
[insert meme about overengineered German tanks here]

Just grabbed these links off google to give you an idea of what to read about, didn't read them myself.

 No.223

>>220
Soviet won by just zerg rushing lol.

 No.224

>>221
>the soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
&ltDeep operation (Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya), also known as Soviet Deep Battle, was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was a tenet that emphasized destroying, suppressing or disorganizing enemy forces not only at the line of contact, but throughout the depth of the battlefield.

&ltThe term comes from Vladimir Triandafillov, an influential military writer, who worked with others to create a military strategy with its own specialized operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish–Soviet War, the Soviet High Command (Stavka) focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art: operations. The Soviet Union was the first country to officially distinguish the third level of military thinking which occupied the position between strategy and tactics.[1]

Literally wrote the foundations of modern warfare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare#U.S._Marine_Corps_doctrine_of_maneuver
&ltThe possibility of a massive Soviet offensive in Western Europe led to the creation of the United States Army's AirLand battle doctrine. Though far from focusing on maneuver, it emphasized using combined arms to disrupt an adversary's plans by striking through their depth and was seen as moving towards maneuver warfare in comparison to the earlier Active Defense concept. The AirLand doctrine was seen by Martin van Creveld as "arguably a half way house between maneuver and attrition."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle
&ltAirLand Battle was the overall conceptual framework that formed the basis of the US Army's European warfighting doctrine from 1982 into the late 1990s. AirLand Battle emphasized close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front line enemy forces. AirLand Battle replaced 1976's "Active Defense" doctrine, and was itself replaced by the modern "Full Spectrum Operations".

 No.225

>>224
This comment adresses your claim:

"This would really require a huge essay. Supposedly the Germans didn't really use a separate concept of 'operational art', which is a rather potentially unnecessary concept or at least overused/abused idea. I think Glantz seriously overestimates how critical and superior Soviet concepts of it were and think that a huge part of Soviet victory was not only their numbers, but Wallied material aid and actions on other fronts. If the war were truly 1v1 (or at least with the historical Axis minor powers helping) then the Soviets couldn't have won the war.

That is important to note not because of operational art, but because of material and men which were siphoned off and prevented the Germans from being able to match to any degree the Soviet numbers. Part of the reason the Germans were able to do what they did in 1941-42 was because of the relative balance of numbers and Soviet inability to bring their weight to bear properly. So I wouldn't really say that one side or the other had 'superior operational art', rather the Germans had a much more functional military system, the best in the world bar none by 1941-43 before Axis losses and Allied catchup finally started balancing things out.

Soviet theory wasn't really the problem, it was actually quite good, but the Red Army was simply unable to utilize it really before 1944. There was practical honing of doctrine and especially organization, but largely 'Deep Battle' was sound theory. It was the tactical and arguably strategic realms that really hampered the Soviets, which ultimately was heavily made up for by numbers and seemingly inexhaustible space and replacements. Its not hard to improve in time when you can seemingly suffer endless losses and correct a bit after every failure.

The Germans didn't really have to change their concepts of maneuver warfare, they just lost the ability to conduct them due to losses and the increasing mismatch in military size (especially as the Wallies siphoned off German reserves and the Luftwaffe). Learning was certainly on the Soviet's side, as they improved the most based on hard lessons, learning what the Germans already knew about maneuver warfare in depth, while the Germans had to adapt to an attritional war they were losing and trying to figure out how to deal with increasing numbers of enemies on all fronts. Arguably the Germans were just devolving due to losses and increasing numbers of enemies, which meant losing the ability to actually act and instead were force to accept being acted upon. They of course improved tactically, but there wasn't the much to learn operationally since they basically understood the fundamentals already. At that point it was adapting to the situation and technologies that were evolving."

 No.226

>>222
Can you read Nigel Askey's article?

 No.227

>>222
>Why do you care so much?
I care because he seems like a legitimate historian and his analysis seems to be backed up by legitimate sources.

 No.228

>>220
>over 4 times as many
lmao

 No.229

>>225
>If the war were truly 1v1 then the Soviets couldn't have won the war.
lol epic historical analysis
I was just addressing the claim that the Soviets had shit for brains theory wise, he doesn't assert this claim ("Soviet theory wasn't really the problem"). He probably just replied to that comment because it was high up and he wanted his to be seen or it was a train of thought provoked by the comment he was responding to.
Honestly it's fascinating how much people will say "Had the circumstances been different…" when it comes to Nazi Germany.
>>226
A bit too tired to read it properly, but
>the Soviet side/agenda
>the Soviet/Russian side’s apparent agenda
>their agenda is to maximize apparent German irrecoverable losses
really.jpg
Lots of referencing a guy whose job is studying German archives too lol
Had a look around to see if anyone had written a response or something like it before and he's also written an article on how the T-34 was bad, actually. A good portion of German tanks had main guns other armies were using as squad support weapons, the T-34 was fine.

 No.230

>>225
>ultimately was heavily made up for by numbers and seemingly inexhaustible space and replacements.
retarded, red army had manpower problems at multiple points, and stalingrad was so important precisely cause they were out of space.

>had a much more functional military system

there was some good, independance of officers proved pretty effective at breakthrough tactics and such, but this also caused many problems, supply and overdive being examples. Also their military intelligence was really shit, and their whole shtick of "big battle big breakthough" strategy fell apart completely against a strategic defense in depth and a drawn war.

I've seen said that soviet were superior strategically and inferior tactically

 No.231

>>223
This.
It's history, deal with it idiots.

 No.232


 No.233

>>232
This video has nothing to the do with debunking the claim that soviets lost more than 2 times as many soldiers than the axis.

 No.234

>>231
Source?

 No.235

>>229
>I was just addressing the claim that the Soviets had shit for brains theory wise,
I never claimed that, you're attacking a strawman.

The point in these comments was that the soviets consistently lost as much or more soldiers and equipemnt in every single battle they fought against the Germans up until 1945, and without having a manpower advantage, they would have lost because they had no way of replenishing losses.

 No.236

>>234
[b]Source: The History Board[/b][b][/b]

 No.237

>>235
>you're attacking a strawman
&ltthe soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals

 No.238

>lose and get enslaved for decades
>still be proud
Weird people

 No.239

I'm going to be moving this thread to /his/ on roulette.

 No.240

>>220So nobody has any desire to make refutal of historian's claim. Great

 No.241

>>221
>Here are prowestern redditor historians claiming that russian historians are censored, and the soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals.
lmao giant cope

 No.242

>>220
>he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history"
yet he writes about history. heh, checkmate I guess

 No.243

>>240
You posted it less than three hours ago when Europe is asleep.
>>239
ripperoni

 No.244

>>240
Exactly. If you like to believe also the wild claims about Syria by turkish trolls on twitter it's not other people's business.

 No.245

Anyone have any links debunking communist 'death tolls'?

 No.246

>>243
Only europeans are interested in analysing WW2 historical papers?
>ripperoni
And now back to seeing amerishart politics and furry anime girl threads on feed.


>>244
This isnt twitter. Also that guy apparently is a professional historian.

 No.247

>>240
Just let them have it. Imagine being german right know and want to feel 'proud' about your country
You look at the history of germany and its nothing but them getting cucked and btfo over and over again by different countries.
Then you cope by analyzing lost wars trying to find something you can be finally be proud of.
You finally find something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside because in this retarded warped version of warfare you made up in your head you 'won' by some weird numerical cope

 No.248

>>245
You can't debunk something that someone made up in their mind

 No.249

>>220
>>221
>reddit
>cold warrior historians
You have to go back.

 No.250

>it's unfair that minor axis are lumped in with the Heer, they performed way worse, 1-1 with the red army even during Barbarossa.
>They should be counted separately

Ok

>It's not right that partisans aren't included in the red army figures they played an Important role.

>Heck the trash minor allies forces were mostly tied up doing anti-partisan work
>I'm lumping the partisan casualties in with the red army casualties.

Hold up, the Professional military forces of Italy are too bad to be counted as German casualties, but the mostly armed civilians are fine as USSR casualties?

Like don't get me wrong his argument is ok generally and I tend to agree with his overall point, if not some of the specifics; but he seems just as guilty of being biased/lazy with the methodology as some of the historians he criticises.

 No.251

>>250
*Minor axis

 No.252

>>220
Too fucking lazy to do a full rebuttal but literally on his about page.
https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/about-us/
>I was born in 1961 in South Africa. I resided mostly in the UK until 1990 and then in Australia to the present day. I graduated in July 1982 from the University of Sussex in the UK, with an honours degree in physics.
Nope no history degree there. Maybe you can chalk this up to “THE EVIL CULTURAL MARXIST JOOISH ACADEMIC SCENE PREVENTS HIM FROM REVEALING THE TRUTH!!!”.
>Since the early 1980s, I have taken a keen interest in military history and military simulations, with a particular emphasis on WWII and ‘modern’ military campaigns. At the University of Sussex I was a founding member of the ‘war-gaming’ club: at that time sophisticated computer based military simulations were still in their infancy and most of the war games used traditional manual map based systems.
&ltgamer
Why does every time there’s a anti-Soviet “historian”, it always inevitably that the person is a gamer?
And before you say he’s a published author, his work is not in anyway peer reviewed. Which is really common for wehraboos authors. Also retards like Solzhenitsyn and Orthodox nutcases that uses camp fire stories as real source for “da soviet horror” are also published authors.

 No.253

>>240
His arguement is literally "I am right, but the Russian information that would support my claims on losses are being suppressed".

 No.254

>>235
>The point in these comments was that the soviets consistently lost as much or more soldiers and equipemnt in every single battle they fought against the Germans up until 1945
Context is important, because the Germans also outnumbered them at the beginning and in many individual battles after then.

 No.255

>>246
>Only europeans are interested in analysing WW2 historical papers?
No, just Americans are probably in /usapol/ and I would expect the Russians to tear this apart when they get their hands on it like they did with this sort of stuff on old leftypol.

 No.256

>>253
His argument is that the "soviet agenda" counts german woundedas casaulties, as well as luftwaffe and kreigsmarine casaulties on the eastern front while omitting VVS, PVO, VMF, and NKVD casaulties and including only RKKA irreplaceable casaulties.

Also he claims that the soviets always had numerical superiority but always suffered extreme losses compared to the germans in the following campaigns:
Blau
Rzhev
Leningrad
Crimea
Hungary 1945
Germany 1945

 No.257

>>256
He also hilariously disregarded how tanks are counted as “loss” to both sides. A t-34 if it can’t run or shoot will be considered “loss” (which also means tanks that got stuck will count too) so you can see a tank counted as a loss to be fighting to the end of the war. While the Germans only put a tank in the list of casualties if it’s completely destroyed.

 No.258

>>257
>While the Germans only put a tank in the list of casualties if it’s completely destroyed
This is true of ALL German statistics, the Krauts only counted professional soldiers as casualties, that means that volkssturm didn't count nor did civilians, meanwhile the Soviets took Partisan and civilian casualties into account so of course in a war where SS units were wandering around behind the lines burning down random villages those "casualties" start to add up. German casualties are really just casualties*

*some exceptions will apply.

 No.520

REVIVING an epic thread. Is Europe finally awake?

 No.1255

Check /r/shitwehraboossay or /r/AskHistorians, those are usually good for debunking the usual arguments.

 No.1256

>>220
I'm no historian so I can't really address his claims. But just from a glance it seems his contention is mainly with the number of soldiers wounded? Having no knowledge about this whatsoever, do wounded count as "losses"? Because virtually every relative of mine who fought either in the Red Army or as Soviet partisans suffered some kind of injury yet continued fighting, so I don't see why it's considered good practice to lump the wounded in with the killed. I guess it makes sense if you're looking at combat performance, however.

>>258
>that means that volkssturm didn't count nor did civilians
so why is he including Soviet partisans lmao, makes no sense. Is it because the partisans were co-ordinated by the NKVD?

 No.1369

>>1256
>so why is he including Soviet partisans lmao, makes no sense. Is it because the partisans were co-ordinated by the NKVD?
That's the big mystery. Maybe it's because the Soviets actually counted civilians losses since they cared about those numbers while nazis just cared about which meat got thrown into the meat grinder, maybe it's cause the Partisans were integrated into the Soviet command structure in 1943. Or maybe Nazi-humping fags are desperate to boost their numbers because there's no evidence to support them otherwise.

 No.1841

File: 1608528126894.jpg (1023.97 KB, 800x4115, WW2 truth and myth.jpg)

>>220
Reposting:
Pic translation: https://leftypics.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2432
Early in the war the Soviets understood that a precision built bolt action rifle with sights graduated to 1200 yards was an expensive option and one that required considerable time and resources to train huge numbers of troops on. The Mosin–Nagant of which they made 37,000,000 was a good weapon but one that only a small percentage of their infantrymen could use to its maximum potential and as with all bolt guns was cursed with a slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity.

The soviets realized sooner than anyone else that 90% of infantry combat takes place at close range (&lt=200 meters) where full power cartridges like their 7.62mm X 54R were over powered and the bolt action rifles that fired such heavy hitters had a low rate of fire. Soviet doctrine demanded that in meeting engagements their troops should be able to establish direct fire superiority quickly and then maneuver under the cover of that high volume of fire. Of course the Germans wanted the same capability but were too slow to implement the changes required in time.

The German Solution:
Was to place light belt fed machine guns with high rates of fire such as the MG-34 with its ~900 round/min rate of fire with infantry platoons. Thus the German squad armed predominantly with bolt action rifles was centered around its base of fire the MG34.
The Soviet Solution (s):
•On one level the Soviets adopted the same solution with the 7.62mm X 54R DP-28 drum fed light machine gun acting as the base of fire and the rest of the unit armed with bolt action rifles.

•Another Soviet solution was the creation of SMG battalions where the predominant weapon was the easy to manufacture PPSh-41 sub machine gun (1000 rounds/min) that was supported by DP-28 LMG and designated marksmen armed with either Mosin–Nagant bolt guns or SVT-40 semi automatic rifles. These units could send clouds of lead at German troops while in the attack at a dead run.

Imagine 20 Germans with 1 MG-34, 4 MP-40s and 15 bolt action rifles facing 20 Soviets with 2 DP-28s, 6 SVT-40s and 12 PPSh-41s. The German unit is over matched with respect to the volume of fire it can deliver. And it take less time and effort to train a sub machine gunner than an effective rifleman.

According to meticulous post-Soviet archival work (G. I. Krivosheev in Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses), the total number of men (and in the Soviet case, about 1mn women) who passed through the armed forces of the USSR was 34,476,700 and through Germany’s was 21,107,000. Of these, the “irrevocable losses” (the number of soldiers who were killed in military action, went MIA, became POWs and died of non-combat causes) was 11,285,057 for the USSR, 6,231,700 for Germany, 6,923,700 for Germany and its occupied territories, and 8,649,500 for all the Axis forces on the Eastern Front. Thus, the total ratio of Soviet to Nazi military losses was 1.3:1. Hardly the stuff of “Asiatic hordes” of Nazi and Russophobic imagination (that said, also contrary to popular opinion, Mongol armies were almost always a lot smaller than those of their enemies and they achieved victory through superior mobility and coordination, not numbers).

The problem is that during the Cold War, the historiography in the West was dominated by the memoirs of Tippelskirch, who wrote in the 1950’s citing constant Soviet/German forces ratios of 7:1 and losses ratio of 10:1. This has been carried over into the 1990’s (as with popular “historians” like Anthony Beevor), although it should be noted that more professional folks like Richard Overy are aware of the new research. Note also that cumulatively 28% and 57% of all Soviet losses were incurred in 1941 and 1942 (Krivosheev) respectively – the period when the Soviet army was still relatively disorganized and immobile, whereas for the Germans the balance was roughly the opposite with losses concentrated in 1944-45.

The idea that there were two soldiers for every rifle in the Red Army, as portrayed in the ahistorical propaganda film Enemy at the Gates, is a complete figment of the Russophobic Western imagination. From 1939 to 1945, the USSR outproduced Germany in aircraft (by a factor of 1.3), tanks (1.7), machine guns (2.2), artillery (3.2) and mortars (5.5), so in fact if anything the Red Army was better equipped than the Wehrmacht (sources – Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won; Chris Chant, Small Arms).

Also the 3 men to a rifle thing actually originates from WW-1 when a British officer noted that Russian troops were thrown into battle with 1 rifle per 3 men, really shows why t

 No.1842

>>1841
> why t
why they went over to the Red Army

 No.2008

>>1841
I've read that 1.3:1 irreplaceable casualty ratio is also what US and British forces had fighting against Germany.

 No.3045

>>2008
Where did you see that?

 No.3362

Post some more Wehraboo arguments and get to debunking them!

 No.4519

>https://s1.desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/trash/image/1606/50/1606504832714.jpg
&ltLe epic "Muh poor Warsaw unhelped by evul Stalin"
What is with /pol/ and putting their ideology into everything including porn?

 No.4595

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrKDBFJoo2w&ab_channel=USNationalArchives

Some archive documentaries

Also can anyone help me find an old documentary about Nazi atrocities? I remember it distinctly because among the footage used were filmed portions of Belarus villages and a literal piles of baby corpses torched alive by the nazi scum.

 No.6948

>>1841
Adding some more context: the 3 men to a rifle meme is actually based on Tsarist Russia, not the USSR:

"By December, 1914, the Russian Army had 6,553,000 men. However, they only had 4,652,000 rifles. Untrained troops were ordered into battle without adequate arms or ammunition. "Untrained troops were ordered into battle without adequate arms or ammunition. And because the Russian Army had about one surgeon for every 10,000 men, many wounded of its soldiers died from wounds that would have been treated on the Western Front. With medical staff spread out across a 500 mile front, the likelihood of any Russian soldier receiving any medical treatment was close to zero". (12)

Tsar Nicholas II decided to replace Grand Duke Nikolai as supreme commander of the Russian Army fighting on the Eastern Front. He was disturbed when he received the following information from General Alexei Brusilov: "In recent battles a third of the men had no rifles. These poor devils had to wait patiently until their comrades fell before their eyes and they could pick up weapons. The army is drowning in its own blood." (13)"

 No.7077


 No.7239

File: 1632322916647.png (222.99 KB, 1005x693, 1608526740152.png)

How important was it for the soviets during ww2

 No.7240

>>7239
I already made a massive effort post about this so there is no thread to really be had.
Please read https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=921020

TL;DR: Lend Lease was barely 4-10% of the Soviet war-effort, and the majority of it was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad. The first deliveries didn't reach the USSR before the Battle of Moscow halted the German assault and pushed them back.

On top of that the majority of Lend Lease tanks and planes were inferior to both Soviet and German tech used, only the Studebaker truck and Aircobra were worth a damn.

On top of that was the fact that the main reason the Nazis had the power to even begin the war was because American, British and Continental European corporations actively supported Hitler up until 1941, with Rockafeller's Standard Oil helping refuel German Submarines up until mid 1942.

>inb4 Muh 1939-1940 Soviet-German trade pact

Soviet exports to Germany were 5th place in terms of amount and were only even that high because they got embargoed from their usual sources. The amount of Wheat the Germans got in trade from the USSR wasn't worth even a month of bread for the army and was less than 1% of Soviet food stocks. The USSR received thousands of pieces of machinery, equipment and military vehicles including a semicomplete ship of the line, the Lutzow, which took part in the war against the Germans.

The Nazis were also politically supported by the West throughout much of the war and prior to it, with Poland being a major part of this.

 No.7241

>>7239
>>7240
related: https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Act
incomplete and based on the nationstates article. Feel free to improve, I'm on break.

 No.7460

File: 1632634091847.png (868.9 KB, 2000x1600, ClipboardImage.png)

Anyone know good sources on how useful and effective German Anti-Aircraft Towers were?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зенитные_башни_люфтваффе

 No.8075

>>225
>a huge part of Soviet victory was not only their numbers, but Wallied material aid and actions on other fronts. If the war were truly 1v1 (or at least with the historical Axis minor powers helping) then the Soviets couldn't have won the war.
Bullfeathers

 No.8078

>>220
hey, i asked on another thread about this but i would like some books about the WWII, principally on Eastern front,china and the ballkans.

 No.8080

>>8078
Here ya go

 No.8082

>>7460
Not particularly, they weren't entirely useless but their function was more for morale than actually winning the air war (which Germany couldn't do due to lack of industrial capacity).

That said, US heavy bomber casualties were incredibly high in WW2, but I think that has something to do with bad doctrine also.

 No.8092

>>8082
>US heavy bomber casualties were incredibly high in WW2, but I think that has something to do with bad doctrine
Also Allied bombing had little real impact on military capabilities until late into the war

 No.8114

>>8092
Perhaps, I'm not sure I agree with that because even if allied bombing only hit urban centres/civilians, it still forced Germany to devote resources to air defence that they otherwise could have turned against the Soviets/Mediterranean/etc.

 No.8117

>>8114
Not significantly enough and the actual bombing failed to be impactful until large bomber formations got used (and even then they got gutted a lot).

 No.8646

>>234
>>236
>>231
>>223
This better be memeing

 No.8647

Related thread >>>/hobby/2906

 No.8648

This is the Italian infantry squad as resulting from the 1938 reforms of the Regio Esercito, the infamous "Pariani reforms" (from General Alberto Pariani, Chief of Staff, who authored it); a much criticized reorganization of the whole army, that basically increased the number of divisions by reducing the number of infantry regiments in each from three to one, thus critically weakening them.

On the small units level, it meant that the infantry platoon went from three 12-men riflemen squads and 3 LMGs to two 18-men squads and 4 LMGs. This was meant to streamline as much as possible the maneuver, so the riflemen squad fought together, with no planned subdivisions for more articulated operations in the field. On the infantry company level, there were no other weapons but rifles and LMGs; the light mortars and MGs were at battalion level, whereas heavy mortars and AT guns were at regimental level.

In other words, the infantry was basically rich only in men, and with low fire capability, despite the theoretical ability to detach heavier weapons from the battalion or the regiment when needed. Whereas the rifle (Carcano Mod. 91) could still be considered tolerable enough despite its small 6.5 mm calibre (there is a lot of bad rep going on about it, but I feel it's exaggerated, and that, all considered, the 6.5 mm calibre for a bolt-action rifle wasn't a meaningful tactical disadvantage), the LMG was a poor weapon, but unfortunately it was the only one relatively widespread.

On the other side, the heavy (8 mm) MGs were rarer, but not that rare as Kuso said; while they had a low-ish rate of fire because of the feed tray system, they were decidedly more reliable, fired a reasonably powerful bullet and were more appreciated. Too bad that there is still a legend going around that they too needed the cartridge to be oiled, which is completely false.

I'll just put here that in 1940 the biggest issue of the Regio Esercito wasn't the weapons themselves, was the sheer firepower available to its units. Just compare the Italian infantry battalion (36 LMGs, 8 MGs and 18 light mortars) with a contemporary British one (22 AT rifles, 50 LMGs, 12 light and 2 heavy mortars, plus 10 Bren Carriers), and we can see why the latter could reasonably outmatch the former.

 No.8649

>>8648
Often called the worst machine gun, the Breda 30 was a poor weapon indeed. The recoil operation was violent, if the magazine was damaged it became inoperable, the Breda suffered from a lot of ammunition cook-offs due to poor heat management, low rate of fire, and was very prone to stoppages. The oiling system which was used to lubricate each bullet was prone to damage, the fully-automatic feature of the weapon was almost unusable due to the aforementioned problems, and it was on par with a semi-automatic rifle in terms of realistic Rate-of-Fire. Other than its unreliability and complexity, if the 6.5 mm calibre was still tolerable for a rifle, it was unacceptable for an automatic weapon. In fact, the decision (taken too late, and reversed by 1940) to adopt the 7.35 mm calibre was taken arguably more due to the need of such bullet to have good performance for full auto weapons rather than its unsuitability or obsolescence for individual weapons (as the RE wanted to use a single calibre for all infantry weapons, reasonably so). The penetration and performance of the bullet is intermediate in terms of power compared to rifle and pistol cartridges of the time.
https://archive.ph/cg7pv
Forgotten Weapons video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFJI04ifSoM&ab_channel=ForgottenWeapons

 No.8651

File: 1636734530623.png (236.94 KB, 328x513, ClipboardImage.png)

Michael Parenti - The Real Causes of World War II lecture

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Lievywdoo

Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDmovEja_f0

 No.9098


 No.9557

>>220
>wehraboo
What does that mean?

 No.9558

>>9557
Weeaboo but Nazi Germany is what the subject is obsessing about instead of Japan.

 No.11588

Read David Glantz

 No.12984

>>1841
>Pic translation: https://leftypics.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2432
Site's dead so reposting the translation here

LIES AND FACTS ABOUT THE GREAT VICTORY
For the 70th anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War

LIE:
Stalin wanted to attack Germany first, Hitler was forced to beat him to it.
TRUTH:
There are no documents to prove this myth. In declassified documents from the Genshtab dating to the spring of 1941, it is said that Soviet forces were generally not ready for war.

LIE:
Stalin and Hitler ignited the war together by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
TRUTH:
The 1939 pact was a response to a similar agreement made between Hitler, Britain, and France. It was realist diplomacy for the time.

LIE:
If the Germans won, we would be drinking Bavarian beer right now.
TRUTH:
The Nazis planned to leave 14 million people in the European part of Russia to serve 4.5 million Germans. They planned to kill or deport 100 million people. Moscow and St. Petersburg were to be destroyed.

LIE:
Western countries secured victory against Hitler.
TRUTH:
Germany deployed 60 divisions on the Western front, vs 200 against the USSR. The US and Britain killed 8 times less Hitlerites than the USSR.

LIE:
The USSR overwhelmed Germany with bodies, with losses of 10 to 1.
TRUTH:
The number of soldiers that did not return in the armies of the USSR and Germany are 11.5 and 8.6 million, respectively, thus the true ratio is 1.3 to 1. During the Second Front, the US and UK lost 2.3 million soldiers over 338 days, during which time the USSR only lost 1.8 million.

LIE:
Millions of Soviet citizens fought for Hitler against the USSR.
TRUTH:
ROA - 50k solders, RONA - 20k, Eastern battalions - 80k, Politsai - 60-70k, Cossacks - 70k, for a total of 300k. There were more than a million Soviet partisans.

LIE:
Soviet soldiers went into battle under threat of death by barrier troops and SMERSH.
TRUTH:
Even the Germans praised the heroism of Soviet troops. Barrier troops did not appear in the Red Army until 1942. Out of 657000 deserters, only 0.5% were shot under the verdict of a tribunal.

LIE:
OUN-UPA did not collaborate with Hitlerists and fought against them just like it fought against the USSR.
TRUTH:
The OUN battalion "Nachtigall" was part of the Abwehr, division "Galichina" in the SS. After a break in the war part of the Banderists came out against Germany, but not one battle was confirmed.

LIE:
The USSR abandoned its POWs to the whims of the Hitlerists, for Stalin never signed the Geneva Conventions.
TRUTH:
Germany signed the Geneva Conventions, and they state that a signatory nation should follow them, even if they are at war with a nation that did not sign.

 No.20590

File: 1696311326789.png (204.86 KB, 640x360, ClipboardImage.png)

>no Americans
>Polish victims!
>le French Resistanse!

The idea Germany was some unstoppable war machine is more or less comes from the writings of German generals after the war and the sentiment coming from the first half of the war. Generals like Halder or Adolf Heusinger were allowed and encouraged by the CIA to write a clean Wehrmacht mythology, which also included a heroic ubermensch mythology of the German army, even when their own war diaries and logs contradicted this. The Germans had a habit to do huge gambles, going trough the Ardennes was one of such and it paid off so much that they were a bit drunk on their successes, hence the confidence they had in Barbarossa.

The Poles were one of the largest armies of Europe, bigger than Nazi Germany's at the time, and with plenty of armored forces. Moreover the USSR only entered Poland after the Germans had beaten the Poles and the Polish Government left Warsaw. The failure of Poland against Nazi Germany is purely because of the cowardice and poor organization of command and logistics in the Polish military, due to being led by a band of cowardly idiots of the Polish szlachta. The Polish Cavalry charging tanks is a myth (with a grain of truth, as Polish Cavalry was indeed active, but still).

Moreover this meme, while meant to dunk on the Nazis by implying their incompetence, takes away from the Soviet victory over them. While it is true that the Nazis were not the ubermensch that Wehraboos fantasize over, they were by no means a poor military, and their early-war tactics let them defeat the French and British forces in direct confrontations, utilizing the weakpoints of their armies. The Nazis were never going to win a war with the USSR, but this by no means takes away from their martial force.

Operation Barbarossa is one the stupidest things in human history. As the Germans genially believed that by the time they reached Smolensk the red army would be non existent and the rest of the invasion would be just walking invasion. Hitler himself said this about the soviet union “We have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”. The invasion was only planned to last three months, because anything longer and they would have run out of supplies and needed to stop which is exactly what happened only able to continue it when the ground froze giving the soviets much needed time to rest and recuperate. They didn't even bother packing winter clothes, and they had no intelligence concerning soviet abilities to pull up reserves. The only reason the operation worked at all, was that the USSR was in the middle of modernizing its army.

French "resistance" is overrated. There were heroes in the movement for sure, but its scale is far smaller than that of say the Belorusian Partisans

 No.20594

Didn't the Germans have a higher K/D than the Soviets simply because they fired more artillery shells

 No.20596

>>20594
Where the hell did you hear that? The USSR was literally famous for its immense artillery usage, the Battle of Berlin alone has the world record for longest and largest artillery barrage in history by the Soviets.

 No.20597

>>20596
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2018/10/24/german-versus-soviet-artillery-at-kursk/
>Still, what is significant is not the number of tubes, but the weight of firepower. In the cases of the Germans, it is estimated that they fired a total of 51,083 tons of ammunition during the course of the battle. It is estimated that 49% by weight of the ammunition consumed was from the gun artillery. In the case of the Soviet forces of the Voronezh Front and the two reinforcing Steppe Front armies, they consumed a total of 21,867 tons of ammunition during the course of the battle. It is estimated that 36% by weight was from the gun artillery
>Overall, this means that while the Soviet forces outnumbered the Germans forces 1.8 to 1 according to tube count, they in fact were out shot according to weight of fire calculations, 2.34 to 1. This is a significant difference and certainly so, with artillery usually responsible for 50 to 70% of the killing on the battlefield

 No.20601

File: 1696393167124.png (1.15 MB, 900x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>20597
This sounds like bullshit to me, what are the sources on throw weight here? What is the time frame for Soviet and German artillery barrages? The Battle of Kursk was an example of a German Offense running into a heavily entrenched Soviet defense (which like in today's Russian defensive lines in the SMO) included the use of massed artillery on advancing armor and troops. The Germans forwent an artillery barrage before their initial assault, hoping to catch the Soviet's unawares in the early morning, but the Soviet artillery opened fire on their flanking armor and forced them to run into the minefields. This continued even as the Germans advanced through the defensive lines while German artillery had limited capability in hitting soviet positions because of the risk in hitting their own troops. German artillery only came into significant play during the Counter-Attack phase of the battle, when the Soviets halted and routed the German advance at Prohorovka and pushed into Orel, which was met with German artillery. Thus the use of artillery at different times in the battle are important to state. Moreover this discounts aviation, as Soviet fighters downed many bomber and dive-bomber aircraft, while their own Sturmoviks dealt immense losses to German armored and infantry forces.

Also how is artillery counted? Is it including Self-propelled artillery like the Stug-III or SU-122? as artillery units? Was the German and Soviet methods of counting if one is artillery or not different?* Does it count mortars as artillery? Are MLRS systems like the Katyusha counted?

Going by statistics of artillery the Soviets had nearly 20K mortars and cannons at eve of battle with over 7.5K more in reserve. Meantime the Germans collectively had 10K of all artillery, and none in reserve. More importantly the Soviets main howitzer artillery was in the 122 or 152mm range, which had higher throw weights that normal German artillery, and the mortars for Germany and the USSR were roughly equal in capability, firing speed and throw weight.
49% of 51,083 tons is 25,030 tons of shells and 36% of 21,867 tons is 7872.12 tons. Meaning the Germans were firing over 3x more than the Soviet forces, even though they had 2-2.5x fewer artillery. That sounds fucking ridiculous, especially considering Soviet artillery doctrine. The idea that they fired far less ammunition than the Germans sounds very improbable.

I'd also add that dupuy institute is known for anti-Soviet shit, so I take any unsourced or poorly cited articles there with salt. I'll have to go over more data to make a better conclusion, but over-all the German expenditure of artillery on the Eastern front is less than the USSR's by a 1:1.4 ratio from what I've generally gathered and considering the preparation that went into the Kursk defense (even accounting for logistical issues) the less than 8000 artillery shells being fired feels extremely suspect to me.

*This is important, because the differing methodologies of counting equipment in various armies in the world provide skewed statistics, thus for example Soviets counted any tank destroyed or forced to be repaired behind lines as a full loss, while the Germans only counted unrecoverable tanks as full losses, thus comparing loss statistics without this nuance makes it appear that the Soviets lost tanks to the Germans 8:1 or more, when that is not the case.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121118005539/http://kursk1943.mil.ru/kursk/oob/index.html

 No.20602

>>20601
>>20597
Unfortunately I cannot access the archive documents I used to read
https://kursk-75.mil.ru/ is blocked by Western services and even VPNs don't seem to work.

 No.20603

>>20601
>Also how is artillery counted?
When he says "gun artillery" and "tubes" he is referring to cannons & mortars. If you scroll down to the last paragraph he does a separate comparison for the MLRS' between the German Nebelwerfer and the Soviet Katyusha.
> Meaning the Germans were firing over 3x more than the Soviet forces, even though they had 2-2.5x fewer artillery. That sounds fucking ridiculous
The gist of the argument is that while the Germans did have less artillery weapons, they also had more artillery ammunition (due to a larger gunpowder industry) which allowed them to shoot more than the Soviets

 No.20605

>>20603
>they also had more artillery ammunition (due to a larger gunpowder industry) which allowed them to shoot more than the Soviets
Which is fucking bullshit, because the Soviets fired more shells over the war than the Germans, by a significant margin, and while logistics in the first 2 years of the war could account for it, Kursk was in the summer of '44 and the Soviets prepared those defensive lines for some time, the idea that they lacked the shells necessary is absurd, especially considering that the USSR had a reputation for their artillery usage and it having a significant impact on the initial start of Kursk especially.


Unique IPs: 16

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]