German generals' view on Red Army during WWII

[hellheaven1987]

I have just finished Liddell Hart's "German Generals Talk", a collection of interview of several German generals, including the major figures of "tank school", several important figure in Western Front and a few close to Hitler. There was one chapter within the book related the German's view about Red Army, which I would like to discuss/ask TWC members how much truth was inside.

1. From the chapter, it seems that most German commanders felt that the quality of Red Army infantries was, although improved, but had a big difference between north and south theatre. The commander in north theatre all agreed that Red Army infantry there were very poor trained and discipline, while the commanders in south all agreed the Russian infantry they faced were not worse than German infantry. Any idea why there was such a quality difference between north and south theatre??

2. General Kleist commented that Russian had more modern rifle with higher rapid fire rate than German at 1941, he probably means the SVT-40.

3. Liddell Hart had questioned General Student that why Russian, despite the pioneer for airborne warfare, had never launched any large scale ariborne assault in Eastern Front; General Student, in reply, said he was not clear the actual reason but believed it was because Russian para was not recieved enough training and lacked of proper airborn assault equipments. Was it true??

[TeutonicCrusader]

About note1, The russian infantry was never even close to the german infantry. North or south.

[Gromovnik]

About note1, The russian infantry was never even close to the german infantry. North or south.

And that why Germany won the WW II...

[Belisaire_]

And that why Germany won the WW II...

the Russian won the battles only when they outnumbered the german and always with more casualties.

[The Noble Lord]

the Russian won the battles only when they outnumbered the german and always with more casualties.

That is such a simplistic view of the issue. Russians were tough and resilient soldiers and they proved themselves in many battles. Russian officer corp too when it comes to planning and conducting the military undertakings, remember the battles such as: Battle of Kursk, and Operation Bagration. Germans were annihilated with such a brilliance that they didn't know what hit them.
It is unfair and historically incorrect to belittle Russians like by saying that "They only won thanks to their numbers and casualties". It's not true at all!

[hellheaven1987]

About note1, The russian infantry was never even close to the german infantry. North or south.

No, that depends; certain elite troops, which recieved proper training, such as para and marine, did well against German.

The problem was that most Russian troops, notable in 1942~43, were mass-conscripted who recieved little training. On rare occasion, for example during the winter offensive around Moscow in 1941, the Russian force simply took whoever could bear a rifle from the reconquered territory.

The chapter also mentions that gureillas were more active in north than south; it also said that Hitler actually praised the mentality of Red Army and measurement was taken to adopt that mentality on German soldiers, but too late to actually see effect.

[ivan_the_terrible]

The chapter also mentions that gureillas were more active in north than south; it also said that Hitler actually praised the mentality of Red Army and measurement was taken to adopt that mentality on German soldiers, but too late to actually see effect.

Guerillas were more successful in the north because of terrain. Belarussian forests were ideal for partisan activity, whereas Ukraine is not so heavily forested.

[Pious Agnost]

About note1, The russian infantry was never even close to the german infantry. North or south.

He has the word of German Commanders to support his claims.

You have God knows what, but I guarantee it isn't as good as what he's got.

[Domen123]

the Russian won the battles only when they outnumbered the german and always with more casualties.

No, during the late stages of WW2 Germans were suffering much bigger human losses than Russians.

Just few examples of such Soviet offensives - Vistula-Odra Operation; Berlin Operation, etc.

For example during the Vistula-Odra Operation (12.01.1945 - 02.02.1945) Russian forces lost 15,000 killed and 60,000 wounded, while eliminating the whole Army Group "Centre" (around 45 divisions were destroyed - partially only remnants of divisions) and inflicting casualties of around 400,000 soldiers to the Germans.

During the Vistula-Odra Operation Soviet forces were advancing on average 30 kilometres per day, encircling and cutting-off many German units.

What is remarkable is that German casualties on the Eastern Front since 1941 until June of 1944 were much smaller than since July of 1944 until the end of the war.

[eisenkopf]

I have just finished Liddell Hart's "German Generals Talk", a collection of interview of several German generals, including the major figures of "tank school", several important figure in Western Front and a few close to Hitler. There was one chapter within the book related the German's view about Red Army, which I would like to discuss/ask TWC members how much truth was inside.

1. From the chapter, it seems that most German commanders felt that the quality of Red Army infantries was, although improved, but had a big difference between north and south theatre. The commander in north theatre all agreed that Red Army infantry there were very poor trained and discipline, while the commanders in south all agreed the Russian infantry they faced were not worse than German infantry. Any idea why there was such a quality difference between north and south theatre??

2. General Kleist commented that Russian had more modern rifle with higher rapid fire rate than German at 1941, he probably means the SVT-40.

3. Liddell Hart had questioned General Student that why Russian, despite the pioneer for airborne warfare, had never launched any large scale ariborne assault in Eastern Front; General Student, in reply, said he was not clear the actual reason but believed it was because Russian para was not recieved enough training and lacked of proper airborn assault equipments. Was it true??

If I remember correctly:

1. Army Group South had more non-german troops than the other two Army Groups. The quality of training, equipment, morale and experience of these auxiliary troops was of lower standard. Maybe this explains why German generals perceived the Russian infantry to be of different quatlity.

2. No idea

3. Lack of proper transport planes, maybe? Also: For a large scale airborne assault, you need local air superiority. The Russians were able to attain this only later during the war.

[Kara Kolyo]

2 besides the SVT models there was also Simonov's AVS 36 rifle. I haven't seen comparison between Mauser K98k and Mosin 91/30 to check which is considered better.
3 as eisencopf mentioned, you need significant air superiority to mount successful airborne operation. Plus the soviets quite early in the war started to use the airborne corpses as pure infantry - they performed quite well in Kiev in 1941 under Vlasov, later they were transformed in guards divisions and sent to Stalingrad and wherever necessary. In a defensive war you don't need large paradrop units. So the soviets had to train new units if they wanted to conduct large scale operations after 1941.
In the winter of 1941 under Moscow was dropped one airborne corps in the period of the soviet counteroffensive. This was a disastrous affair however since the paratroops were sent to deep into the german defense and the ground troops couldn't reach them so the entire corps was destroyed.

[Domen123]

1. - in my opinion it has something to do with Russian experienced divisions from Siberia (the same who had experience from combats against Japanese forces).

Does anybody know if this is correct? Were the Siberian divisions indeed directed to the southern part of the frontline?

[hellheaven1987]

1. - in my opinion it has something to do with Russian experienced divisions from Siberia (the same who had experience from combats against Japanese forces).

Does anybody know if this is correct? Were the Siberian divisions indeed directed to the southern part of the frontline?

Not sure, and the small skirmish between Russian and Japanese would not provide any combat experience.

The reason why Siberian garrisions were quite effective because they were the last one that actually recieved proper training and not destroyed during 1941; after that Soviet had to form divisions as quick as possible in order to regain strength. In fact, General Kleist states that Red Army was weakest in 1942, not 1941.

[Heathen Hammer]

This could be explained by the fact that Soviets viewed their southern territories more important, since most of their resources and industries were there. So it is pretty logical, that they'd use most of their elite forces to defend those territories.

[Domen123]

In fact when the Axis invaded the Soviet Union, it was the Axis which had got numerical superiority if it comes to the number of combat ready soldiers.

[hellheaven1987]

In fact when the Axis invaded the Soviet Union, it was the Axis which had got numerical superiority if it comes to the number of combat ready soldiers.

No, Axis actually had less number than Soviet at the start of 1941; General Kleist, in estimation, states that Axis could only muster about 122 divisions at the begin of operation, well they estimated Russian had station 155 divisions on Western Russia. The actual number was rather even larger than that, around 190 divisions were in Western Russia actually.

[Lysimachus]

No, Axis actually had less number than Soviet at the start of 1941; General Kleist, in estimation, states that Axis could only muster about 122 divisions at the begin of operation, well they estimated Russian had station 155 divisions on Western Russia. The actual number was rather even larger than that, around 190 divisions were in Western Russia actually.

Russian "Rifle" divisions were smaller than their German counterparts, a Russian tank corps was the equivalent of a Panzer-Division (which were always understrength anyway) and i'm sure that the Russian tank divisions were the equivalent of a brigade.

[hellheaven1987]

Russian "Rifle" divisions were smaller than their German counterparts, a Russian tank corps was the equivalent of a Panzer-Division (which were always understrength anyway) and i'm sure that the Russian tank divisions were the equivalent of a brigade.

Except Russian had three times more tanks than German at the begin of operation.

[Lysimachus]

No, during the late stages of WW2 Germans were suffering much bigger human losses than Russians.

Uhm, no. Actually the Germans put up quite a stalwart defence and inflicted huge casualties on the Soviets and delayed them like at the Zeelow Heights and let's not forget Berlin. That city was attacked with what was the equivalent of what Germany invaded the Soviet Union with in 1941 and the Germans were still able to inflict immense casualties on them. Praise to the 33SS-Panzergrenadier-Division "Charlemagne".

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Soviet Elite forces XD