Some Russian opinions about German soldiers in WOII

[Groenewolf]

source (http://vojnik.org/en/3)


«Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS were great warriors!»

Old incorrigible Nazis, telling it to curious journalists somewhere in Bolivia, or rough skinheads, shouting these words during their meeting in а gloomy Berlin suburb? Wrong! Three outstanding Russian writers, unanimously admiring the worst enemies of Communism! (Very serious intellectual crime all over «the civilized world» today)

Speaks Daniil Granin (born in 1919), who spent 3 years in the blockading (by German and Finnish troops) Leningrad:

«The Germans fought better, much better than our soldiers. Moreover — we`ve managed to win that war only by human flesh!»

Boris Vasiljev was the Red Army battle officer during WW2:

«The Germans waged war perfectly. Even when they were encircled, they fought excellently! I know it. I saw it by myself!»

The author of several military and patriotic novels, Vasiljev tells:

«We`ve managed to win the war by chance, absolutely. Evald von Kleist simply decided to stop his tanks for several days just near Moscow. Therefore, the Soviets received some free time in order to transfer the fresh troops, which attacked the Germans very successfully».

While General Andrej Andreevitch Vlasov is reputed officially in modern «free capitalist» Russia as «vicious pro-Nazi collaborator and traitor», Vasiljev considers absolutely differently:

«Vlasov was magnificent, properly Russian national military Commander! He decided to revenge himself upon Stalin, who committed terrible crimes against all peoples of Russia. Vlasov had high ideal of the Free Russia, as well as the real sense of responsibility towards his soldiers.?

The Red Army` generals en masse were the direct opposite as compared with Vlasov, thinks Vasiljev:

«There were killed 1.300.000. Russian soldiers near Rzhev — through Soviet commanders` faults only, and nobody speaks about the terrible tragedy so far in my country!»

The late Viktor Astafjev was on the Soviet-German front all the war long, 1941-1945:

«The Germans fought much, much better — in all respects! The Communists chose to shed rivers of the Russian blood literally in order to win the War. The Soviets won over Germany only by their extreme brutality and inhumanity!»

The best WW2 Commander? «Field-Marshall Erich von Manstein, of course!», tells the great Russian national writer:

«He managed to push three Bolshevik armies into the Azov and Black Seas with the help of two German corpses only! He was the great military genius — yes, really!»

And Zhukov?

«Honest Russian patriot? Ha! This bastard covered half-Europe by the millions of the Russian guys` corpses by his extremely sadistic personal kind of war waging! He deserves neither honor, nor respect, never!»

[Марко Краљевић]

No doubt that Germans showed well in WW2, well in the first half anyway. But there are two Red Armies, pre and post 1943. First one was obsolete with poor command structure with lot of meddling of Stalin in original Stavka decisions with a usage of cavalry charges against tanks and machine guns. This army fared awful with huge casualty imbalance compered to Germans. Post 1943 Red Army was different army altogether. It had highly coordinated command with precise objectives and goals. Upgraded equipment, substituting imperial Mosin-Nagant action bolt rifles with semiautomatic Tokarev SVT-40 rifles, issuing PPSh-41 and PPS-42 submachine guns in large quantities, massively producing upgraded T-34/85 tanks, introducing IS 2 heavy tanks, ISU-122 assault guns, Katyusha rocket launchers etc. All that while fighting upgraded Wehrmacht (stg 44, panther and tiger I, II tanks), Finns, Baltic nations, Hungarians, Croats, Romanians, Volksdeutchers and who knows who else too. It fared quite well in later stages of war.

[Adalwolf]

On the eastern front the Germans were outnumbered approximately 15 to 1, and if they had accomplished specific feats, would have eventually overtaken the soviet union.

[Breedingvariety]

On the eastern front the Germans were outnumbered approximately 15 to 1, and if they had accomplished specific feats, would have eventually overtaken the soviet union.
I believe Germans were outnumbered, but not by that much. 15 to could have happened by application of force concentration in some sectors of the front, but not along the entire front.

[Guapo]

On the eastern front the Germans were outnumbered approximately 15 to 1, and if they had accomplished specific feats, would have eventually overtaken the soviet union.

Doubt it. Why even attack a nation when you're outnumbered by that much? Hitler and his cronies were nuts anyway.

[Adalwolf]

When you have superior weapons and armament, a disproportionate amount of troops can seem not as big of a problem. Hitler also thought he had more of an element of surprise.

[Guapo]

When you have superior weapons and armament, a disproportionate amount of troops can seem not as big of a problem. Hitler also thought he had more of an element of surprise.

He was just a wanna be Napoleon.

[Adalwolf]

He was just a wanna be Napoleon.

:D The ironic part about this statement is that Napoleon brought Jews into Europe, while ol' Adolf wanted them out.

[Марко Краљевић]

On the eastern front the Germans were outnumbered approximately 15 to 1, and if they had accomplished specific feats, would have eventually overtaken the soviet union.

Only 15 to 1? You Soviet sympathizer and provocateur. How dare you to diminish the pure awesomeness of German soldiers by no less than one order of magnitude? News flash it was at least 100 to 1. How do I know this? Because if it was 99 to 1 Germans would had been in Vladivostok by Christmas. Consider yourself warned before I report your post to moderators for such a blasphemy.:p

[noricum]

He was just a wanna be Napoleon.

Why wannabe? Napoleon failed in Russia, so did Hitler.

[Guapo]

Why wannabe? Napoleon failed in Russia, so did Hitler.

My point exactly.

[Svanhild]

Why wannabe? Napoleon failed in Russia, so did Hitler.
As a matter of fact, Napoleon fought against Russia on one single front and failed. Germany had to fight half the world in addition to the war in Russia. You can't compare both. Whilst Germany was battling at the Eastern Front, my country had the Commonwealth and other allied nations around the neck at the Western Front, in North Africa, on the Atlantic Ocean...

Russia didn't defeat the 3rd Reich. The combination of all allies together did.

[poiuytrewq0987]

As a matter of fact, Napoleon fought against Russia on one single front and failed. Germany had to fight half the world in addition to the war in Russia. You can't compare both. Whilst Germany was battling at the Eastern Front, my country had the Commonwealth and other allied nations around the neck at the Western Front, in North Africa, on the Atlantic Ocean...

Russia didn't defeat the 3rd Reich. The combination of all allies together did.

Even if it was only Russia fighting Germany... Russia would've won because the Allied contribution to the war was minimal compared to the Russian contribution to the war effort against the Nazis.

[Saruman]

LOL as usual people can't be objective and are too partisan. Well it's OK to defend your group or group which you sympathize but make sure it is based on facts not distortions or lies, the latter is so pathetic and dishonorable. As usual it's not black or white but more or less grey. Also think of the eastern front in a positive way for a moment, regardless of who/why/how won, it was the greatest conflict/theater of operations in history, something to be talked about for eternity..

[Don Brick]

Even if it was only Russia fighting Germany... Russia would've won because the Allied contribution to the war was minimal compared to the Russian contribution to the war effort against the Nazis.

Although it may have appeared so on the surface I wouldn´t count on it. The supplies that the Anglo-American alliance delivered to the Soviets via convoys not to mention the constant Enigma decryptions by which they could inform the Soviets of almost every single German military move throughout the Eastern Front were critical for the USSR´s war effort and fight for existence. And that´s not even all. There´s a very real possibility that on its own the Soviet Union would´ve collapsed sooner or later.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

^The Sovietunion will never collapse!

[Saruman]

No doubt that Germans showed well in WW2, well in the first half anyway. But there are two Red Armies, pre and post 1943. First one was obsolete with poor command structure with lot of meddling of Stalin in original Stavka decisions with a usage of cavalry charges against tanks and machine guns.
Yes but also purges of Stalin decimated officer ranks especially on single independent unit level.


This army fared awful with huge casualty imbalance compered to Germans.
But also doctrine played significant part, theirs gave little value to individual soldier lives, and they could afford themselves such doctrine because they had almost unlimited manpower pool.




When you have superior weapons and armament
Not so, that's where Germans lost actually, if you compare the sheer value of Katyusha to Nebelwerfer's insignificant value, if you consider that when they encountered T-34 they had to use flak 88's to knock them down, hence these anti-aircraft guns became famous as an anti tank weapon. It's not only about the quality of equipment but also whether it's affordable etc.. Tank wise German tanks were inferior in the beginning, what could PzIII or PzIV have done against T-34? Little. Against KV-1? Nothing. You can bring Panther into equation but it was too late, first time Panther appeared they in part ruined German thrust at Kursk because they were pushed into battle unprepared and untested. Tiger was legendary but it was a huge mistake not to give it sloped armor. Also Ferdinand tank destroyers were great but they forgot to give them machine guns for self-defence so they could be taken out by infantry once their own infantry was separated from them....Simply put German designers often didn't do their job very well, even tank that was to replace Panthers was inferior to Soviet successor of T-34's - T-54. Look even IS-3 had armor layout clearly superior to that of King Tiger and yet it was much smaller and more agile, and with a bigger gun, German 88 had great penetration, but also Russians could have made their 122 just as menacing and such large caliber is very useful against infantry and bunkers too! Just consider had the war gone on for 46,47, T-54 is a match for King Tiger while being almost 2 times lighter!! And new German medium tank E-50 was clearly inferior machine to his Russian counterpart T-54.


As a matter of fact, Napoleon fought against Russia on one single front and failed. Germany had to fight half the world in addition to the war in Russia. You can't compare both. Whilst Germany was battling at the Eastern Front, my country had the Commonwealth and other allied nations around the neck at the Western Front, in North Africa, on the Atlantic Ocean...

Russia didn't defeat the 3rd Reich. The combination of all allies together did.
Germany fought mostly on Eastern front, it has to be said that Russians were helped by the allies. On the sea it wasn't much of a contest as Kriegsmarine was hopelessly outmatched by Royal navy, though U-boats did very well but you can't expect U-boats to win the war at sea. Still Germans did very well but it could be said Germany could have won if not for unnecessary errors on their part, like the ones I mentioned and many more, and how many times Hitler did harm with his decisions..

[Svanhild]

Even if it was only Russia fighting Germany... Russia would've won because the Allied contribution to the war was minimal compared to the Russian contribution to the war effort against the Nazis.
I'm afraid that's wrong. Remember that Germany had to split armies and powers to retain three different frontlines and for the occupation of conquered territory. With split powers and armies and a few tactical mistakes, Germany was capable to reach the outskirts of Moscow. With united power...you can work that out for yourself.

[Saruman]

I'm afraid that's wrong. Remember that Germany had to split armies and powers to retain three different frontlines

What do you mean by "split armies"? 3 Army groups(that had to be done)? Or 3 fronts? Still by the time of D-day, Soviets were about to initiate Operation Bagration which destroyed Army group center (weakened by Hitler who transferred most of armor to southern part of eastern front). I speak of Barbarossa, it could have ended in capture of Moscow if not for the delay(Balkans). Also various other factors played part.


and for the occupation of conquered territory.
That "goes with the territory" though.


With split powers and armies and a few tactical mistakes, Germany was capable to reach the outskirts of Moscow. With united power...you can work that out for yourself.

That's demanding "perfect conditions", for that at least Britain had to be taken out of war and that didn't work out, later Britain played crucial part in delaying Barbarossa.

[Guapo]

it could have ended in capture of Moscow if not for the delay(Balkans).

What do you mean? Are you saying the partisans were good fighters?

[Peerkons]

Italy and Japan were no good allies.

[Saruman]

What do you mean? Are you saying the partisans were good fighters?

They weren't important in that time frame, but Germany had to intervene on Italy's part. Crucial was the delay of Barbarossa, Germans weren't well prepared for conducting offensive in Russian winter.

[Adalwolf]

Saruman, what are you talking about? The T-34 tanks were in no way superior to the panzer models, they were just produced at a much faster rate. And the problem with the king tiger and panther prototypes is that their tracks were too wide and kept getting stuck in the mud. The Russians knew the terrain well and were able to manufacture equipment appropriate for the job. The Germans just made too many tactical errors and weren't prepared for the winter months...

[Saruman]

Saruman, what are you talking about? The T-34 tanks were in no way superior to the panzer models,

Not to Panther or Tigers, but those came in later. I spoke of PzIII or PzIV, do you really want to make such a (rather silly and overly fanboyish) claim? If earlier Germans tanks weren't inferior to T-34 then why were Stugs converted into tank destroyers?



they were just produced at a much faster rate.
And partly because they were more complex machines, you must take the cost and time needed for manufacture into account.


And the problem with the king tiger and panther prototypes is that their tracks were too wide and kept getting stuck in the mud.
You can't have a tank such as King Tiger with narrow tracks, the sheer weight demands wider tracks.. But even so ISU-152 was a cheaper Russian match for KT..

[Mordid]

Anti-Russian here, obviously. :(

[Don Brick]

Anti-Russian here, obviously. :(

David, I haven´t read all the posts here, but I don´t think anything "anti-Russian" has been said so far. No need to get paranoid. We´re simply discussing history.

[Adalwolf]

Not to Panther or Tigers, but those came in later. I spoke of PzIII or PzIV, do you really want to make such a (rather silly and overly fanboyish) claim? If earlier Germans tanks weren't inferior to T-34 then why were Stugs converted into tank destroyers?

Just kick the PZIII out of the equation for now. However, the PZIV had the more powerful 75mm gun, and overall when matched against T-34's, the Russians lost more men and armament. I would give the edge with armor to the T-34, though.


And partly because they were more complex machines, you must take the cost and time needed for manufacture into account.

Time needed is no comparison at all, when you have so many more able bodied workers...


But even so ISU-152 was a cheaper Russian match for KT

Disagreed. The King Tiger was in a class of it's own.

[Adalwolf]

Anti-Russian here, obviously. :(

Anti-Soviet, no hostility towards Russians.

[Peerkons]

Guess which non-Germanic SS Division had most decorations? :)

[Марко Краљевић]

Guess which non-Germanic SS Division had most decorations? :)


Baltic shoota boyz?:confused:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/249/d/d/ork_shoota_boyz_by_shooter__andy-d2y4vr0.jpg

[Saruman]

Just kick the PZIII out of the equation for now. However, the PZIV had the more powerful 75mm gun, and overall when matched against T-34's, the Russians lost more men and armament. I would give the edge with armor to the T-34, though.

Russian tactics were inferior in early days. Yes better gun especially at longer ranges, but weaker armor, but also one more aspect: T-34 was cheaper than PzIV.



Disagreed. The King Tiger was in a class of it's own.

Impressive machine but one hit from ISU-152 is problematic for KT as that shell weighs almost 50 kg, even if it doesn't penetrate it can kill a tank! Especially steel quality later in the war was lower even a 122mm shell could leave cracks not to mention 152mm one..
Still KT had problems such as reliability, being slow... And are you aware that T-54, still used today would have been a match for King Tiger, having same/better armor good gun much better mobility, lacking in other departments, overall one could say a better tank, Russians could have rushed them earlier possibly! Still since that comparison isn't quite correct (medium vs heavy tank) T-54 would have been superior to E-50 (Panther's successor).