Order of Battle vs historical realities

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

Igor1941
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:08 am

Button - made in USA))). In the USSR there was nothing. As in the Soviet Union stolen design and technology. https://maxim-nm.livejournal.com/377298.html

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:59 am

Very interesting article, although I must admit I don't know Russian very well :wink:
I had such a game (Nintendo Egg) in my childhood, nice memories :)
Thank you @Igor1941

terminator
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by terminator » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:36 pm

Hi,
I read this : " it is know that there where no Panthers at Prokhorovka, The SS Panther crews had not been trained in time and where still in Germany at the time of this battle, there were Panthers in kursk just not at Prokhorovka."

Panthers at Prokhorovka or not :?:

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:11 pm

terminator wrote:Hi,
I read this : " it is know that there where no Panthers at Prokhorovka, The SS Panther crews had not been trained in time and where still in Germany at the time of this battle, there were Panthers in kursk just not at Prokhorovka."

Panthers at Prokhorovka or not :?:
There fought II SS-Panzer Corps at Prokhorovka and indeed the Panther battalions (1st panzer battalion from each divison) were not ready, they were in Germany.
Only 39th panzer regiment of 200 Panther D vehicles was fully equipped on the day of the Kursk battle, but was assigned to the Grossdeutschland division, which protected the left wing of the II SS-Panzer Corps, so did not participate directly in the battle of Prokhorovka.

German armored equipment at Prokhorovka:
1st SS-PzGrenDiv Leibstandarte
7x Pz II, 13x Pz III, 83x Pz IV, 13x Tiger, 35x StuG, 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 12x Grille, 21x Marder
2nd SS-PzGrenDiv Reich
1x Pz II, 70x Pz III, 33x Pz IV, 14x Tiger, 34x StuG, 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 26x T-34/76, 9x Marder
3rd SS-PzGrenDiv Totenkopf
63x Pz III, 52x Pz IV, 15x Tiger, 35x StuG, 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 10x Marder

TripleCP
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by TripleCP » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:45 pm

About Lend Lease, it's important to keep in mind that most of the equipment arrived in 1943-1945 (by which time it was certain that Germany could not defeat the USSR). General von Mellenthin bitterly recalled that Western aid to the USSR contributed little to preventing the Wehrmacht from taking Moscow but contributed a lot to bringing the Red Army to Berlin, Vienna, and Prague.

I know the US did manufacture some Soviet uniforms, but less sure if this was a symbolic gesture or if a substantial number were actually US made. I've seen plenty of surplus ones and none had buttons like that. Early Soviet weapons were largely copies of Western designs like the WWI-era French FT-17 Renault tank or the 1920s British Vickers 6-Ton (the Soviet T-26), which is to be expected when you keep in mind that around 40% of Russia's pre-1917 industry was foreign-owned (and largely foreign-operated). However, by 1941 most of the Red Army's weapons were Soviet-designs and were well-regarded by their opponents (the PPSh submachine gun and T-34 tank, to name a couple). On the other hand, the US did provide a lot of the Red Army's motor pool as well as things such as radios and cans of Spam (affectionately referred to as "second fronts" by some Soviet soldiers).

The popular Western image of poorly-armed and -led Russians being herded into battle as cannon fodder (see the opening scene of "Enemy at the Gates") has more in common with WWI than WWII. As German General Erhard Raus wrote: "The difference between the Russian units in World War I and those in World War II was considerable...The number of illiterates was small, very much in contrast to the situation at the time of World War I...The industrialization of the country, carried out in a very short period of time, made available to the Red Army a large number of workers with full command of technical skills...Whereas in World War I the telephone was still magic to the average Russian, in World War II he regarded the complicated radio as an amusing toy."

To get to back to kondi754's point, a total German military victory over the USSR (or the UK and the USA) was never realistic. The irony is that it is now clear that the German General Staff knew this beforehand, but fell victim to wishful thinking after the collapse of France in 1940 (which many historians now claim was more of a political failure than a military one, as the French arguably suffered worse defeats in 1914 but never lost the will to fight). The surrender of their principal Great War adversary convinced many Wehrmacht officers that "Bolshevist" Russia would also collapse within six weeks of the invasion..."just kick the door in and the whole rotten structure will collapse." Basically, they were counting on a scenario similar to the downfall of Mussolini in 1943, which was no less far fetched than Soviet fantasies that German soldiers and workers would rise up against Hitler if he dared break the non-aggression pact with the USSR.
Last edited by TripleCP on Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://www.facebook.com/RussianFront75/

terminator
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by terminator » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:39 am

kondi754 wrote:
terminator wrote:Hi,
I read this : " it is know that there where no Panthers at Prokhorovka, The SS Panther crews had not been trained in time and where still in Germany at the time of this battle, there were Panthers in kursk just not at Prokhorovka."

Panthers at Prokhorovka or not :?:
There fought II SS-Panzer Corps at Prokhorovka and indeed the Panther battalions (1st panzer battalion from each divison) were not ready, they were in Germany.
Only 39th panzer regiment of 200 Panther D vehicles was fully equipped on the day of the Kursk battle, but was assigned to the Grossdeutschland division, which protected the left wing of the II SS-Panzer Corps, so did not participate directly in the battle of Prokhorovka.

German armored equipment at Prokhorovka:
1st SS-PzGrenDiv Leibstandarte
7x Pz II, 13x Pz III, 83x Pz IV, 13x Tiger, 35x StuG, 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 12x Grille, 21x Marder
2nd SS-PzGrenDiv Reich
1x Pz II, 70x Pz III, 33x Pz IV, 14x Tiger, 34x StuG, 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 26x T-34/76, 9x Marder
3rd SS-PzGrenDiv Totenkopf
63x Pz III, 52x Pz IV, 15x Tiger, 35x StuG, 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 10x Marder
Thank you for all this precision.
I am going to be able to add Panthers tanks in my scenario Kursk (Soviet Corps).

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:22 am

Of course, these quantities of equipment are on July 4, 1943 (the beginning of the operation), below I give in brackets the condition (number of efficient vehicles) of the equipment on July 11, 1943 (after a week of fighting, the day before the beginning of the battle of Prokhorovka)


1st SS-PzGrenDiv Leibstandarte
7x Pz II (4), 13x Pz III(5), 83x Pz IV(47), 13x Tiger(4), 35x StuG(10), 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 12x Grille, 21x Marder(20)
2nd SS-PzGrenDiv Reich
1x Pz II, 70x Pz III(34), 33x Pz IV(18), 14x Tiger(1), 34x StuG(7), 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 26x T-34/76(14), 9x Marder
3rd SS-PzGrenDiv Totenkopf
63x Pz III(47), 52x Pz IV(27), 15x Tiger(2), 35x StuG(12), 12x Wespe, 6x Hummel, 10x Marder(11)

Wespe, Hummel, Grille (self-propelled artillery) losses were only several copies, mainly due to malfunction
Irreversible total loss of equipment were not high (15-20%), a lot of tanks were (repaired) in the front workshops

Igor1941
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:40 am

TripleCP wrote:About Lend Lease, it's important to keep in mind that most of the equipment arrived in 1943-1945 (by which time it was certain that Germany could not defeat the USSR). General von Mellenthin bitterly recalled that Western aid to the USSR contributed little to preventing the Wehrmacht from taking Moscow but contributed a lot to bringing the Red Army to Berlin, Vienna, and Prague.

I know the US did manufacture some Soviet uniforms, but less sure if this was a symbolic gesture or if a substantial number were actually US made. I've seen plenty of surplus ones and none had buttons like that. Early Soviet weapons were largely copies of Western designs like the WWI-era French FT-17 Renault tank or the 1920s British Vickers 6-Ton (the Soviet T-26), which is to be expected when you keep in mind that around 40% of Russia's pre-1917 industry was foreign-owned (and largely foreign-operated). However, by 1941 most of the Red Army's weapons were Soviet-designs and were well-regarded by their opponents (the PPSh submachine gun and T-34 tank, to name a couple). On the other hand, the US did provide a lot of the Red Army's motor pool as well as things such as radios and cans of Spam (affectionately referred to as "second fronts" by some Soviet soldiers).

The popular Western image of poorly-armed and -led Russians being herded into battle as cannon fodder (see the opening scene of "Enemy at the Gates") has more in common with WWI than WWII. As German General Erhard Raus wrote: "The difference between the Russian units in World War I and those in World War II was considerable...The number of illiterates was small, very much in contrast to the situation at the time of World War I...The industrialization of the country, carried out in a very short period of time, made available to the Red Army a large number of workers with full command of technical skills...Whereas in World War I the telephone was still magic to the average Russian, in World War II he regarded the complicated radio as an amusing toy."

To get to back to kondi754's point, a total German military victory over the USSR (or the UK and the USA) was never realistic. The irony is that it is now clear that the German General Staff knew this beforehand, but fell victim to wishful thinking after the collapse of France in 1940 (which many historians now claim was more of a political failure than a military one, as the France arguably suffered worse defeats in 1914 but never lost the will to fight). The surrender of their principal Great War adversary convinced many Wehrmacht officers that "Bolshevist" Russia would also collapse within six weeks of the invasion..."just kick the door in and the whole rotten structure will collapse." Basically, they were counting on a scenario similar to the downfall of Mussolini in 1943, which was no less far fetched than Soviet fantasies that German soldiers and workers would rise up against Hitler if he dared break the non-aggression pact with the USSR.
Stalin's industrialization was actually forged by Americans and Germans
https://www.crimea.kp.ru/daily/25863.3/2829607/

The loss of 1-20 (in favor of Germany) is a victory?

- The general decrease in the population of the USSR in 1941-45. - more than 52 million 812 thousand people. Of these, irretrievable losses as a result of the war factors - more than 19 million troopsand about 23 million civilians. The total natural death rate of servicemen and civilians during this period could be more than 10 million 833 thousand people (including 5 million 760 thousand - dead children under the age of four). The irretrievable losses of the population of the USSR as a result of the war factors amounted to almost 42 million people, the presentation report says.

https://polkrf.ru/news/1275/parlamentsk ... tnyiy_polk

Taken from pro-Kremlin propaganda sites

Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers 1.5 million. The Hiwis may have constituted one quarter of 6th Army's front-line strength, amounting to over 50,000 Soviet auxiliaries serving with the German troops

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:11 pm

@TripleCP
Recent research confirms the participation of significant quantities of British tanks (Mathilda II, Valentine, Churchill) in counteroffensive near Moscow in the winter of 1941/42.
Similarly, a significant number of Hurricane planes defended Murmansk (main lend-lease port) in the winter of 1941/42.
Let me repeat again, only the British tanks defended the Caucasus in 1942.

TripleCP
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by TripleCP » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:00 am

@kondi754: I'll defer to your expertise regarding the specifics, as those are interesting facts which I mostly hadn't read before. I did know that some British tanks took part in the fighting near Moscow during the winter of 1941/42, but also read that they were of limited value because they weren't intended for use in sub-zero temperatures and that the Matilda was just too slow and under-powered to keep up with the T-34s and various light tanks during the counteroffensive. Most of the postwar accounts by German generals have their own axe to grind and should be treated skeptically, but the overall impression I get from reading them is that Lend Lease's greatest contribution was aiding the Soviets in developing the logistics and communications needed to carry out the "Red Blitzkrieg" of 1943-1945. About the US M3 tanks ("the coffin for seven brothers"), as much as the Soviets disliked them I remember Hans von Luck writing that they gave the Afrika Korps a bit of a shock as only the up-gunned Panzer IIIs and IVs could knock them out.

It will be interesting terms of game play, because I don't think many Soviet players would only opt to use a Matilda or Valentine Tank unit if they were given them free or if their cost or command point usage was a lot less than a T-34 or KV1.

@Igor1941: I read Russian decently enough, but am skeptical of those who have tried to revise Soviet casualty figures significantly higher that the usual figure of 27 million total (roughly 7 million KIA, 3.5 POWs who died in captivity, and the remainder civilians) usually acknowledged. Most of the military historians I know who focus on the German-Soviet war seem to think likewise and give them about as much credibility as the laughable claims of "Suvorov" and others that Hitler attacked the USSR in an act of preemptive self-defense. As far as Germany being able to win, the fact that the Soviets had the political will and military capability to continue fighting after the disastrous defeats at Minsk, Smolensk, etc. demonstrated that Barbarossa had failed to achieve the results Hitler and his generals had hoped for (as I said, many still clung to their WWI experience and believed deluded themselves into thinking that dealing with the Russians would be "child's play" compared to defeating France).

I'm sure someone will eventually put together a alternate campaign in which the German player can change history, but most of the scenarios are pretty far fetched (same would hold true for Germany actually being able to pull of Operation Sea Lion in 1940, the Soviet 1941 winter counteroffensive causing a Napoleon-in-1812 style disaster for the Wehrmacht, Japan invades San Francisco, etc.).
https://www.facebook.com/RussianFront75/

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:11 am

My only point is that we are constantly discovering new facts, while a lot of mischief in the belittling of lend-lease has been made by Soviet propaganda after the war.
You see the bad sides of British tanks and you're probably right, but the Soviet tanks also had their drawbacks.
The quality of tank's steel decreased significantly in 1941-42, due to the relocation of many factories, but also a reduction in quality standards. In addition, there were still lack of radios in most of the Soviet tanks.
The lend-lease tanks were not bad at all (against that background), their participation in the offensive near Moscow 41/42 was the more important because the Soviet tanks were very few at that time, after previous gigantic losses. Some researchers estimate the share of lend-lease tanks in the Moscow counter-offensive by up to 25% :!:

Igor1941
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:43 am

@TripleCP Read again my links ... There is not "Suvorovschina", and the official data of 42 million is the data for 2017. Out of 42 - 27 million are soldiers. If it were not for Lend-Lease, the war would have been lost in 1942.

TripleCP
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by TripleCP » Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:17 am

@kondi754: I don't disagree with any of that, but it is still true in general that most Westerners (Americans especially) still err in the opposite direction of overstating the importance of Lend-Lease. The "Eastern Front" is definitely one exception to the rule of "the victors write the history." That's not to say that official "party line" Soviet accounts should be accepted at face value, but that generally has never been the case. It also doesn't help that many Russian writers in the 1990s went to the opposite extreme in trying to discredit the whole Soviet era (i.e. the Germans only attacked because Stalin was about to attack them, actual Soviet casualties were closer to 50 million killed, all the good equipment came from the Western Allies, etc.).

@Igor1941: The higher casualty figures have been circulating for a long time, but I know of no breakthrough research which would lead me to dismiss the figures cited by David Glantz and Jonathan House, which in turn was largely based on Krivoseyev's findings.
https://www.facebook.com/RussianFront75/

Igor1941
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 am

@TripleCP
Krivosheev is not a historian, but a propagandist. You can believe the myths of Krivosheev on. You are either a troll or a useful idiot, as the communists used to say

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:10 am

kondi754 wrote:@TripleCP
Recent research confirms the participation of significant quantities of British tanks (Mathilda II, Valentine, Churchill) in counteroffensive near Moscow in the winter of 1941/42.
Similarly, a significant number of Hurricane planes defended Murmansk (main lend-lease port) in the winter of 1941/42.
Let me repeat again, only the British tanks defended the Caucasus in 1942.

Of course, only Mathilda II and Valentine tanks participated in this battle. Over 90 vehicles. (20% total amount of used tanks, and 50% of heavy and medium tanks)
Churchill appeared at eastern front early summer 1942.

@Igor
Calm down, you shoudn't write in this way :?

Igor1941
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:29 am

[/quote]




@Igor
Calm down, you shoudn't write in this way :?[/quote]
Ок :lol: :lol: :lol:

13obo
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by 13obo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:00 pm

Indeed, so far you've managed to keep it civil despite controversies. Always remember there are two sides to a story so be open and please don't insult.

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Erik2 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:22 pm

It is an interesting discussion, guys.
Please keeep it civil.

TripleCP
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by TripleCP » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:30 am

Well, it's at least nice to be called useful...

Needless to say, it's a controversial topic and will probably never be definitively resolved, but I'm not sure that an endorsement from a pro-Putin politician validates the higher figure. I'm nowhere near as familiar with the reputations of individual Russian historians as I am with American ones, so I'll have to defer to the judgement of one whose reputation I do trust (Mark Harrison in this case):

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics ... rrison.pdf

The short version: "A new estimate of the Soviet population loss in World War II, by Russian historian Igor Ivlev, is 42 million. This is 15-16 million more than the previous estimate of 26-27 million. The latter, by Russian demographers Andreev, Darskii, and Kharkova, has been widely accepted for a quarter of a century. I examine the new estimate, show its place in the Soviet demographic accounts side by side with the old one, contrast their sources and methods, and find that the new figure is without foundation. The previous figure stands. On existing knowledge, the Soviet war dead were 26-27 million."

On Lend Lease, this is what Col. David Glantz concludes: "Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in sustaining the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of this assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941-42; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory...Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches. Thus, while the Red Army shed the bulk of Allied blood, it would have shed more blood for longer without Allied assistance."
https://www.facebook.com/RussianFront75/

kondi754
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:56 pm

I have several Glantz books about the war in the east.
i.e. From the Don to the Dnepr: Soviet Offensive Operations, December 1942-August 1943.
Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942
The Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944: 900 Days of Terror
Red Storm Over the Balkans: The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Spring 1944

I think that he also underestimates this little help in that most difficult period.
Well, the fact that by December 1941 several hundred tanks came to USSR, but in 1944 it was several thousand tanks,it is not comparable in any way, because in 1941 these lend-lease tanks were most needed and had a larger share in the total number of tanks (especially in medium and heavy tanks, so the most needed) than later, when the Soviet industry produced more than ten thousand T -34 a year.
Also remember it was the most difficult to provide support for USSR in the years 41-42.
After the great Ubootwaffe's defeat in 1943, convoys went full steam.

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”