Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Russian vs German Infantry Weapons

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by Lt Fox, Mar 25, 2008.

  1. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Oh darn it, you mean the Uebermenschen lost the war to a bunch of iliterate peasants? - propably I can't sleep tonight.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  2. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    As if it mattered much, eh? Wars aren't won at tactical level, they're won at strategic and operational level. Little infantry weapon details don't make much of a difference, otherwise I'm sure the Germans would have won with their Divine Kar98k, StG44, FG42, MP40, MG42, etc, etc.
     
  3. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    Strategic and Operational??? Tactics?? Bah!!! Don't you know it's the awsome weapons that win the wars :rolleyes: ?
     
  4. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    I cant be sure, but is that a bit of sarcasicm Za?:rolleyes:
     
  5. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    333
    Of course, but we were discussing when it comes to the ability of the average krasnamiarets to deal with complicaed weapons such as the SVT40, well, the RKKA decided to give them to the VVS because Naval infantry were more used to dealing with machinery etc and so could handle the maintainance associated with a semi-automatic rifle.
     
  6. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    Ihe idllyc Russian village hundreds of miles removed from the amenties of civilization was extant only as a fantasy. The traditional village was facing extinction at the 40s. The Russian collective farm was of the industrial agrarian school, which means it would make use of machinery and electrical power if they could obtained. Frequently it was.
     
  7. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    From me? Never!



    :D
     
  8. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    Remember that combat experience is critical the russians had a lot by later in the war the russians had made every mistake possible and lost troops in numbers that would have been totally unacceptable. The Russsian units had NVDK (KGB later) barrage units which stayed just behind the frontline and shot any unit withdrawing or sometimes just maneuvering. Given this the Russians elan is less suprising if the US or common wealth troops had a death sqaud waiting for less enthusiastic troops and commanders they would have been somewaht less careful.

    That's not to say the Russians individually didn't show great courage and by the end of the war some skill. The cost of that experience was way too high and millions of Russian lives were wasted by a regime that had killed more people than even Hitler managed.

    In the end the Russian tactics were very successfull but their losses were often absurdly high for the gains achied and units such as released POW's and Rumanian allies were deliberately wasted.
     
  9. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello mikegb,

    I won't go too much into details - might leave that to ZA -:)

    NVDK: those units were a "horrible nessessity" in order to stop the German advance - however AFAIK those units were not deployed anymore after 1942 in that function.

    Some skill: the soldiers of which the Germans had the most respect for were the Russian soldiers - as such I would doubt that the term "some" is appropriate.

    Russian Regime: do you have any sources for your "claim" that Stalin killed more people then Hitler?

    Absurdly high: That an attacker who disregards a "slow advance" without total artillery and airsupremacy and attacks dug in units has far higher losses then a defender is known, therefore the Russian losses had to be higher then those of the Germans from 1943 to 44. Russian losses -Figures- from 1945 are greatly distorted by the Germans and Russians themselves.

    The Russian "soul" is indeed different from the Western European in regards to "value live less" it is however IMO no measurement in regards to the Russian fighting abillity. The same approach onto "value live" was taken by Hitler in meanigless "holding out" orders - most famous Stalingrad.

    Now to a Russian soldier who in the end gets killed due to NVKD units or a German Soldier being ordered to die in Stalingrad - where is the difference? and how does this help to evaluate a combat or fighting performance?

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  10. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    Do you have references for this? Or perhaps a first hand account?
    But even then if you did, that one soldier, or even that one division all saying the same thing about how much they respect the Russians, they do not talk for the entire of the German armed forces, therefore I find that statement lacking.

    How many stories do you hear of German officers threatening their men with "The Russian Front", how many man would have preferred to have been posted on the western front against the Americans or British. They at least knew that had they been taken prisoner by the western allies they could at least have a high chance of returning to Germany alive. A perfect example is the reamainder of the 6th German Army after its capture at Stalingrad, and compared to those captured, how many got home?

    Are you trying to suggest that Stalin was less horrific then Hitler in terms of those killed, both in civillians in 'cleasning' or soldiers, due to stupid desicions such as the 'human wave'?

    Are you trying to say, that becuase the Russians didn't have artilley or air support during 1943 -44, that is why they had hugh losses?

    Generally any defending unit suffers less casualties then the attacker, but of course there are exceptions, but it terms of Russia it was due to poor tactics at the beginning, which later did change, seeing less losses compared to the beginning of the war.
     
  11. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Tomcat:

    Do you have references for this? Or perhaps a first hand account?
    But even then if you did, that one soldier, or even that one division all saying the same thing about how much they respect the Russians, they do not talk for the entire of the German armed forces, therefore I find that statement lacking.

    Well, since you even would neglect the statement of a full division, then what is it (source) that you might respect?

    How many stories do you hear of German officers threatening their men with "The Russian Front", how many man would have preferred to have been posted on the western front against the Americans or British. They at least knew that had they been taken prisoner by the western allies they could at least have a high chance of returning to Germany alive. A perfect example is the reamainder of the 6th German Army after its capture at Stalingrad, and compared to those captured, how many got home?

    So??? do you think the Germans were just afraid of the Russian winter and the mosquitos in the Pripjet swamps?
    No, they feard the Russian soldier and the consequenzes of facing him in the first place. Also please keep in mind that this "threatening with the Russian front" was usually applied towards soldiers who served in a Garrison unit in the West (before the allied landings) or some nice desk job in the Reich.

    Are you trying to suggest that Stalin was less horrific then Hitler in terms of those killed, both in civillians in 'cleasning' or soldiers, due to stupid desicions such as the 'human wave'?

    I am not suggesting anything in regards to "less horrific" but I asked for a source that indicates that Stalin killed/murdered more people then Hitler.

    Did the Russians use or aply human waves all the time from 1941 till 1945? I really do not know why this human wave thing is so deeply engraved in some peoples mind.

    Are you trying to say, that becuase the Russians didn't have artilley or air support during 1943 -44, that is why they had hugh losses?

    I said that if Stalin neglects a "slow advance" - such as the allies in Italy or Normandy and additionally do not field a total supperiority in regards to artillery and air superiority - the attacker is bound to have far higher losses then a defender that is additionally dug in.

    Generally any defending unit suffers less casualties then the attacker, but of course there are exceptions,......

    So the whole Westernfront from 1943/4 onward would be an exeption? I do not believe at all, that the defending German units in France and Italy had less casualties then the attacking US/Commenwealth boys.

    .......but it terms of Russia it was due to poor tactics at the beginning, which later did change, seeing less losses compared to the beginning of the war.

    Did I say or forward otherwise?

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  12. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    I was merely pointing out that bacause one soldier, or even one Division belived that, it does not automatically mean the whole German army felt the same way, so we should not make statments based on "What the whole of the German armed forces thought in ww2"

    Fear it not necessarily respect, and I agree with the bolded statment above.


    I apologize, I thought you were implying something else.

    I was not saying that at all, but merely using such early tactics as an example of the "careless" attitude of Stalin in view of his soldiers, until the development of tactics designed to prevent losses.


    Even with such superiority, high losses sometimes are unavoidable, but I do agree, as your example of the western front.

    In comparison to the Eastern Front, Yes.
     
  13. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Tomcat:
    I was merely pointing out that bacause one soldier, or even one Division belived that, it does not automatically mean the whole German army felt the same way, so we should not make statments based on "What the whole of the German armed forces thought in ww2"

    From a lot of books that I have read, and from a large bunch of relatives and familyfriends who fought in the war, - none of them ever mentioned about fearing a Western Allied soldier - but their superiority in regards to ammo and equipment. - which as such results in a certain fear towards having to fight the Western Allies.

    In regards to the Russian, all of those Germans agree about the hardship and fighting abillity of those guys - they had the utmost respect towards the Russian soldiers and some of his weapons - it was the Nazi propaganda that placed the Russians at the level of animals and a bunch of illiterate and worthless Mongol Farmers. This view was however not shared by those Germans who actually had to face them.

    It is later in the war (44 onward) that a superiority in arms and equipment on behalf of the Russians is mentioned by those Wehrmacht soldiers who fought in the East - and as such contributed even more to their respect and fear towards the Russians.

    Fear it not necessarily respect, and I agree with the bolded statment above.

    Agree, see my above comparrison between Western and Eastern allies.

    I apologize, I thought you were implying something else.

    No prob. :)

    I was not saying that at all, but merely using such early tactics as an example of the "careless" attitude of Stalin in view of his soldiers, until the development of tactics designed to prevent losses.

    You are correct in regards to "the early tactics", but what choice did Stalin or the Russian Army have against the initial speedy and overwhelming German advance?

    Even with such superiority, high losses sometimes are unavoidable, but I do agree, as your example of the western front.

    So it is due to Stalins timeline and not due to the Russian waves, their military abillity or having to be the attacker.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
    Tomcat likes this.
  14. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    333
    Tomcat, just re your point about defending forces having fewer casualties than the attacker, you missed one word out. A victorious defending force will generally have fewer casualties because they might have prepared defenses etc, most doctrine states that ideally an attacking force will require a 3:1 superiority in manpower in order to negate this advantage. If however the defending force is defeated, they loose what advantages they have and so could have as many or more casualties than their attacker.

    Basically, if the defender wins you would expect them to have fewer casualties than the attacker. If they loose there is nothing to stop them taking massive casualties.
     
    Tomcat likes this.
  15. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    An excellent point, and a good addition.:)

    Kruska, from what I am reading it appears that we generally agree on everything, except a few aspects, but you make some great points and argumnets, so I am happy to leave it at that.:)
     
    Kruska likes this.
  16. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Tomcat:
    Kruska, from what I am reading it appears that we generally agree on everything, except a few aspects.........

    Yes I had that impression from your earlier posts, so I guess you might have read my previous one a bit too fast :).

    Thanks for the Salute mate, See you around ;)

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  17. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    Perhaps, I do tend to be one of those 'jump first and think second' type of person.:D

    And no problem.
     
  18. Slavic Marksman

    Slavic Marksman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    On the Mosin Nagant vs the k98, It all depends on the skill of the shooter-he is the one who makes that rifle accurate.

    Take the svt-40 Tokarev for example,Many Russian soldiers said the svt-40 was very inaccurate however sniper Lyudmilla Pavlichenko achieved 309 kills with hers.
     
  19. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    333
    That is the case with any weapon though, a better shot will do better regardless of what weapon they are using. However, there are qualities of a weapon that can make it more or less accurate than alternatives, these are associated with barrel length and so on.
     
  20. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Stefan is correct on that, and every rifle (G3/G36) is evaluated and recorded even in todays GAF. The better/more suitable ones are reserved for the marksmen guys in the respective unit.

    Regards
    Kruska
     

Share This Page