Myths of the Red Army during World War II

[hellheaven1987]

Well, it is just either mechanized infantry or armor anyway; US during WWII had "light" and "heavy" armor divisions, which the only difference between those two were ratio between infantry and tank.

[kentuckybandit]

Germans loved the KV-2, and converted many into the Sturmpanzer KW II (r) by adding new lighting and a commander's cupola. They were hoping to use them as assault vehicles when planning the invasion of Malta.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Also a little known fact was the sheer amount of T34 and others of these tanks that the Germans shipped back to Germany. They either tried to modify them or tried to use them wherever tanks were needed. The T34 was really good for its weight category especially if they could be mass produced easily.

[Mayer]

but the Wehrmacht never deployed many T-34s on the eastern front because german gunners identified targets according to silhouette and pak-artillery shot at everything which even closely resembled a T-34. However they made good use of them as towing vehicles without turret.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I recall they used it as some sort of auxiliary tank. Like how the Soviets used British and American tanks to support some lesser fronts. But it was a waste of fuel so the Germans didn't really use the T34 for this good reason but they had plenty tucked away in armories and such.

[Hanny]

Germans loved the KV-2, and converted many into the Sturmpanzer KW II (r) by adding new lighting and a commander's cupola. They were hoping to use them as assault vehicles when planning the invasion of Malta.

Changed the main armament to a PZR IV L/43 and the 13 so equiped then went into AGC as a captured Tank Co, posted to 22 Pzr Div.

[kentuckybandit]

Changed the main armament to a PZR IV L/43 and the 13 so equiped then went into AGC as a captured Tank Co, posted to 22 Pzr Div.

Excellent. If I had dug into my German AFVs of World War II encyclopedia I would have seen this, laziness on my part.

I have a myth I would like cleared up, or simply enlightened. Last year when the ramming frenzy hit full strength in War Thunder everyone kept saying "It was a legit tactic by the Soviet air force". I have done some digging and have found instances where pilots have used their props to sever tails and ailerons (by many nations) but was this an actual combat option utilized by the Soviets? Beyond aircraft, armaments and the fact that they often flew in much smaller groups or even solo compared to the Luftwaffe, I know absolutely ZERO about Soviet air tactics in WWII.

[Stavroforos]

Excellent. If I had dug into my German AFVs of World War II encyclopedia I would have seen this, laziness on my part.

I have a myth I would like cleared up, or simply enlightened. Last year when the ramming frenzy hit full strength in War Thunder everyone kept saying "It was a legit tactic by the Soviet air force". I have done some digging and have found instances where pilots have used their props to sever tails and ailerons (by many nations) but was this an actual combat option utilized by the Soviets? Beyond aircraft, armaments and the fact that they often flew in much smaller groups or even solo compared to the Luftwaffe, I know absolutely ZERO about Soviet air tactics in WWII.

Yes, ramming was using by the Soviets, but not in the sort of suicide kamikaze runs obviously, and also obviously mainly utilized against bombers. It wasn't doctrine as far as I know, but something that was done in the earlier stages of the war.

[Sire Brenshar]

Siberian snipers stopped the Wehmacht drive on Moscow in late 1941. I'm unsure of the status of this myth but I have seen it repeated in many "coffee table" WW2 books, but its so simple its surely innacurate.

I think rather it was fresh Siberian divisions arriving from the East that 'saved', more likely helped to save, Moscow in 1941.

Probably you mean though that the myth is that it was the snipers alone who did all the work?

Tuchachevsky/some other comrade invented Blitzkrieg. Once again I'm unsure of this, there some theory of deep operations in Soviet military doctrine, but I can't see how the Nazis acquired it.

In the 30's Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were very close and helped the development of modern military theories.

IMO 'Blitzkrieg' itself is a kind of myth. As in its just a general name for the new style of German warfare of the late 30's and 40's, and not that its a 'myth' as in a fictional story.

[Hanny]

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2008/P7192.pdf

[Jagdpanzer]

The IS2 was the greatest tank of World War II.

[DarthShizNit]

The Glorious IS2 sees your heresy and obliterates it with the holy firepower of it's sacred 122mm cannon. You are redeemed of your sins by it's mere presence, but nevertheless are taken to the afterlife by it's justice.

[hellheaven1987]

The IS2 was the greatest tank of World War II.

Arguable yes, consider its records of mechanical failure was less than Tiger II.

[Arto]

Japan surrendered thanks to the sheer amount of surprise during Operation August Storm

It's true that the Red Army was at the gates of Korea but the main factor of the surrender was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US. Also, the ''rather you than them'' mentality that the Japanese government held during the final month of WW2.

[Gäiten]

The Battle of Prochorowka, it was reported the *swan song* of the German Panzers and a great victory for the brave soldiers of the Red Army who destroyed hundreds German tanks (even by ramming them) in their assaults on the 2nd SS Panzer Corps.

It was a disastrous defeat for the Red Army.

[DarthShizNit]

So disastrous, that the Germans failed to take their objectives and retreated!

[Gäiten]

Do not mistake the tactical Battle of Prochorowka with the strategical battle of Kursk

[DarthShizNit]

I'm not The Soviet Counterattackmay have been thrown back, but at the least they left behind too many burnt out tanks for the Germans to advance through :p

[SPECTREtm]

Myth: The T-34 was the best tank of WWII and a war winning design.


This is imo, one of the most common myths regarding WWII, when it comes down to equipment. The T-34 featured some nice ideas and was cheap, that is undeniable, but it's abiliy has been elevated far beyond it's actual capabilities both by the Russians, but also by the Germans as it was a convinient explination for their defeat (the enemy had better stuff)

The T-34 was produced in an insane amount of more than 54.000 tanks, but out of this production some 44.900 tanks were irrecoverably lost by the end of the war. That's a lost of more than 80% of total production.

Also it's a myth that German tanks were incapable of fighting against the Soviet tanks during the period of 1942-1943 when the T-34 started to make it's impact. A large part of Soviet AFV casualties were caused by the then standard German 50mm gun. Sure, the 50mm as an inadequate weapon as the Germans quickly realized, but it still managed to get a lot of kills. This is likely due to poor design choices (especially in the T-34) that allowed German crews to get off a lot more shots and come a lot closer than they would later in the war when the Soviets started adressing these critical inefficiencies (lack of radio, and tactical incompetence)

It should be noted that the Soviet production of AFV (all types of tanks, spg, etc) totalled some 99.000 - around twice as much as the total German production.

You can of cause argue that the T-34 was a war winning design on the strategic level as the Soviets could turn out as many as they did, but given it's actual performances it is really stretching it call it the best tank and I beg to differ that there were a lot of other circumstances that played into the Soviet defeat of the Wehrmacht in the East.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

So disastrous, that the Germans failed to take their objectives and retreated!

I call that Manstein's folly (or second folly rather). God of war my foot more like self promoting blow fish, Vatutin knows what I'm talking about, am I right