Soviet WW2 tactics

[torongill]

That would be Glantz's August Storm, in which he describes the Kwangtung Army as:

Despite its numerical strength, the Kwantung Army lacked quality. The Japanese Imperial High Command had transferred most veteran Japanese divisions from Manchuria before the summer of 1945. Hence, most remaining divisions were newly formed from reservists or from cannibalized smaller units. In fact, only the 119th, 107th, 108th, 117th, 63d, and 39th Infantry Divisions had existed before January 1945. Training was limited in all units, and equipment and materiel shortages plagued the Kwantung Army at every level. The Japanese considered none of the Kwantung Army divisions combat ready and some divisions only 15 percent ready

Yes, that's the one. Actually, what caught my eye was the foreword(at the time didn't have time to read the document, though I thought I'd bookedmarked it. Thanks for the link. ) - "For those who dismiss the campaign as a walkover of an already defeated enemy, LTC Glantz presents overwhelming evidence of tenacious, often suicidal, Japanese resistance."

[Applesmack]

None of the above. You could stop cluttering the thread though.

In other words, there is no reason. You just don't like me cause I have other feelings other than pure hate for the Russia.

[Danny_K_1]

Sounds just like how I had them pegged, a bunch of crazy Russians who would fight till the last breath.

[motiv-8]

In other words, there is no reason.

You couldn't be more wrong on that point but I won't let your insanity drag yet another thread off-topic.

You just don't like me cause I have other feelings other than pure hate for the Russia.

Case in point -- severe paranoid dementia. Let it go.

[Applesmack]

You couldn't be more wrong on that point but I won't let your insanity drag yet another thread off-topic.

Case in point -- severe paranoid dementia.

Haha, who keeps responding to me then? Who was the first one who decided to look down at another poster? take a look in the mirror buddy. You wanna think you are all that, you can shut up first For in all honesty, what people think of me is something I never cared about.

[Domen123]

Soviet deep battle tactics completely smashed the Germans.

The deep battle tactics wasn't fully developed before late 1944 and for the first time showed its efficiency during the Vistula - Oder Operation in January 1939.

By the way, the Vistula - Oder Operation can compared to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.

[Domen123]

Several quotations from the above article of Glantz about the Kwantung Army:

For those who dismiss the campaign as a walkover of an already defeated enemy, LTC Glantz presents overwhelming evidence of tenacious, often suicidal, Japanese resistance. [...] As for the argument that the Japanese lethargy reflected the low quality of their troops and poor esprit de corps, the combat record of units in the ensuing campaign dismisses that charge. [...] In terms of leadership, equipment, and manpower, the Kwantung Army of 1945 certainly was not the same army as it was in 1941, but it was also not so ineffective as some analysts have claimed. In many instances, the marginal replacements of 1945 performed well on the battlefield, whenever they were permitted to fight. Even in reduced state, Japanese divisions outmanned their Soviet equivalents and fought well. Thus, the Japanese 80th Independent Mixed Brigade and the 119th Infantry Division did a remarkable job at Hailar and on the road through the Grand Khingan Mountains to Pokotu. The 135th Independent Mixed Brigade and the 123d Infantry Division acquitted themselves well at Aihun and Sunwu. Many border garrisons, holed up in fortified regions against overwhelming numbers, performed heroic defenses and earned the respect of their adversaries, who perhaps thought of similar Soviet sacrifices at Brest and Sevastopol. The Soviets viewed with awe the Japanese "death units," which threw their explosive-laden bodies at Soviet tanks.2 In fact, where Japanese forces stood and fought under competent leadership, they did a credible job and gave the Soviets the opposition they had expected. In reality, it was the higher echelon leadership of the Kwantung Army who engineered the army's overall mediocre performance.

Soviet casualties in Manchuria:

Ground forces:

Trans-Baikal Front - 2228 irrecoverable, 6155 sanitary
1st Far Eastern Front - 6324 irrecoverable, 14745 sanitary
2nd Far Eastern Front - 2449 irrecoverable, 3134 sanitary
Mongolian units - 72 irrecoverable, 125 sanitary

As you can see the number of irrecoverable losses (ca. 11,000) was much higher than those suffered by American ground forces on Okinawa (ca. 7500).

Equipment losses were 11,000 small arms, 78 tanks or assault guns, 232 guns or mortars, 62 combat aircrafts.

Sea forces:

Pacific Fleet - 998 irrecoverable, 300 sanitary (according to other data sanitary casualties were 777 wounded and 3299 sick)
Amur Fleet - 32 irrecoverable, 91 sanitary

[OTZ]

The scale of the campaigns are also much different - as were the pace of combat operations. Neither battle can be compared to one another for a litany of reasons.

One thing I don't believe Glantz touched on was the absolute failure of the Japanese leadership's analysis of intelligence operations. To say that they were caught flat-footed is as much a testament to the Russians skillful preparation as it is to Japan's brutal miscalculations of Russian intentions.

[Dr. Croccer]

That's just simply not true, the US had fewer casualties then the opponent in nearly every battle in WW2 and after.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hurtgen_Forest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...Kasserine_Pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sidi_Bou_Zid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_El_Guettar

Most victories the US won untill 1945 were probably phyrric. They often had comparable, if not higher, casualties than the Germans. It wasn't necessarily their fault (after 1942 at least, during the Africa campaign US troops were quite inexperienced in comparison to the Germans). Areas like Monte Cassino, the Kassarine Pass, the Hurtgenwald, the Netherlands and the German border area in general were very easily defendable, and German troops had a knack for establishing ad hoc defensive positions within days and laying ambushes.

[Farnan]

Market Garden and Monte Cassino were Allied Operations, with Monte Cassino a mostly Commonwealth-Polish Operation.

[Dr. Croccer]

Market Garden and Monte Cassino were Allied Operations, with Monte Cassino a mostly Commonwealth-Polish Operation.

I was under the impression that the bulk of the troops in both campaigns were Americans.

[Farnan]

I was under the impression that the bulk of the troops in both campaigns were Americans.

No.

Market Garden there were Two US Airborne Divisions, 1 British Airborne Division, 1 Polish Airborne Brigade, 1 British Armored Division, 2 British Infantry Divisions and a British Cavalry Regiment.

So 2 US Divisions, 4 British Divisions, 1 Polish Brigade and 1 British Regiment.


Monte Cassino lasted 4 Months, but except for the initial assault which was 2 US Divisons, 4 French Divisions (and some skirmishers), 1 US-Canadian Combined Unit, and 2 British Divisions it was overwhelmingly Commonwealth, French and eventually Polish. Actually after the initial assualt US ground troops played only a supporting role and were focused at Anzio.

[hellheaven1987]

The order.

[OTZ]

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hurtgen_Forest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...Kasserine_Pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sidi_Bou_Zid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_El_Guettar

Most victories the US won untill 1945 were probably phyrric. They often had comparable, if not higher, casualties than the Germans. It wasn't necessarily their fault (after 1942 at least, during the Africa campaign US troops were quite inexperienced in comparison to the Germans). Areas like Monte Cassino, the Kassarine Pass, the Hurtgenwald, the Netherlands and the German border area in general were very easily defendable, and German troops had a knack for establishing ad hoc defensive positions within days and laying ambushes.

The problem with Wiki is often their sources. In your examples above, both the Bulge and Hurtgen figures are derived from secondary sources - and only one for that matter. This is a red flag for me (Wiki usually is anyway). I'm not necessarily saying that Wiki is wrong - but I believe if your conclusion that "Most victories the US won untill 1945 were probably phyrric" is based on the stats in the links you've provided, then you should do a little more to support it.

Starting with your definition of "most" - there is a significant gap from Tunisia to the Hurtgen in your list. What about Sicily and the rest of Italian campaign? The entire Fench campaign?

[Farnan]

The order.

It was the XVII Airborne Corps who did the Market Part and the XXX British Corps that did the Garden Part. The totals were given in my post.

And the Order of Battle at the End of the Battle of Monte Cassino:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati....28at_Anzio.29

4 US Divisions and 1 Regiment-sized unit
4 French Divisions and 4 Regiment-sized units
3 British Divisions and 4 Brigades
2 Canadian Divisions and 1 Brigade
1 Indian Division
2 Polish Divisions and 1 Brigade
1 Italian Brigade sized unit
1 South African Division and 1 Brigade
1 New Zealand Division

Totaling: 8 Commonwealth Divisions, 6 Commonwealth Brigades, 4 French Divisions, 1 Italian Brigade, 4 French Regiments, 2 Polish Divisions, 1 Polish Brigade, 4 US Divisions and 1 US Regiment.

[Dr. Croccer]

Starting with your definition of "most" - there is a significant gap from Tunisia to the Hurtgen in your list. What about Sicily and the rest of Italian campaign? The entire Fench campaign?

Sicilly and Italy were filled with primarily Italian troops, my point revolved around American battles against the Germans. During the Normandy campaign, outside of the initial landings, obviously, the Americans suffered quite nasty casualties during Operation Luttich, at Brest, Nancy and St. Lo, if I recall correctly. I'm not that educated on the war in France, compared to that in the Low Countries and Germany.

[Farnan]

Sicilly and Italy were filled with primarily Italian troops, my point revolved around American battles against the Germans. During the Normandy campaign, outside of the initial landings, obviously, the Americans suffered quite nasty casualties during Operation Luttich, at Brest, Nancy and St. Lo, if I recall correctly. I'm not that educated on the war in France, compared to that in the Low Countries and Germany.

Actually in Italy and Sicily the primary enemies of the US forces were Germans. Italians played very little part in those battles. The Italian Army switched sides in 1943 remember, and Italian forces fought alongside the Allies.

[Domen123]

Here you have got nice figures on casualties of American ground forces in individual campaigns:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/....html#contents

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...ualties-1.html

(at the bottom of the second linked website)

As you can see combats on the Italian Front cost them little less than 26,000 dead. Combats in Western and Central Europe on the other hand cost them ca. 109,000 dead servicemen (including less than 14,000 in Normandy from 6 VI 1944 to 24 VII 1944 and over 40,000 in the Rhineland Campaign from 15 IX 1944 to 21 III 1945).

African Front cost the US ground forces around 3,000 dead, mostly in Tunisia.

[samurai89]

Russians dont need tactics or strategy, all they have to do is to shout in their really scary Russian accent and your running.

[Koelkastmagneet]

Most victories the US won untill 1945 were probably phyrric.

Even if the US lost more troops each battle they won, the victories would still not be Pyrrhic