No, you are talking with sergeant of the army of russian federation, retired. From a family of soldiers. My family fought in all russian conflicts since the revolution of 1917-1918.
As a human being that was born in Soviet Union, i must point out, that you have no idea what penal battalions were. Also i doubt that you know what were barrier troops and what was their purpose. (not the one you see in the movies my friend).
You really should study more, and watch movies less.
No problem Mr. Internet Sergeant, sir!
I will immediately quit my currently ongoing Asian Studies and start studying Modern Military History right away. Just wait three years until I've got my Bachelor and then we can have our discussion again.
Or you could simply explain how I was wrong and how it really was from your own experience or that passed down from your family and proceed to show how my admittedly limited knowledge is inadequate (because as mentioned, I do not intend to Major on that field of studies right now!). Because all I have at my immediate disposal is what I remember from school, read up from articles (mostly internet) and seen in documentaries.
But if you are really interested in an honest discussion, then I heartily suggest you stop making unbacked assumptions about me getting all my informations from movies and claim to be someone with extensive firsthand experience without actually sharing any of said experience.
I do know about penal battalions (the fact I had pointed that out beforehand should be a giveaway, duh), I do know about barrier troops, I do know about the directive 227 and I do in fact know about a lot of other things too. I am certainly no certificated expert and I'm the first to say that I won't be and will likely make a couple mistakes here and there, but you coming from nowhere, doing nothing but attacking me personally, instead of actually countering anything I've said, concluding with the hilariously clichéed "ima soldier, bruh" certainly doesn't help advance the issue.
Now, either you contribute with facts, either expand/correct or disprove my arguments entirely, or you can take your attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine!
It pretty much actually is that easy.
Just take a look at how the Soviets fought. Classic Zerg Rush. A good deal of the time, a significant number of soldiers going to battle didn't even have a gun, they had to loot it from fallen comrades. Granted, it wasn't only because the Soviets didn't have enough guns, but also because the Soviet officiers knew the fatalities would be so high that it ultimately mattered little if everyone or only every second one had a gun.
Taking a look at the pre-war industrial output, the Soviets and the USA alone were already possessing a much higher industrial capacity than Germany had when they were already all but on full war footing and that is before those nations went to go to war economy. Germany never even had enough resources to build enough weapons to even theoretically stand a chance, let alone actually produce all that, let alone crew all that equipment. Italy and Japan were the same picture, Japan in fact even worse as they already were on the verge of collapse due to a simple oil/gas embargo.
<SNIP>
The retrospective of history is easy of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you could put a couple stasticians in a library with industrial and population growth data and they'd tell you the Axis would be insane to try a war and actually thinking they had any chance to win short of their enemies simply letting them without giving a fight.
<SNIP>
Axis defeat was inevitable,
Allied victory likewise was only impossible if they didn't even fight.
Eirene has already responded to much of this, so I'll only say a few things. The first paragraph is all so wrong, and yet what most people believe. It's one of the great myths of WW2. That was how the soviets lost! When they won, they did it the same way as everybody else. In painstaking detail and care. Stalin simply had to accept that some generals, who did know how to fight a war the old fashioned way - not the "- Forward, comrades!" -socialist way, were dug out and given command. Some of them, like Konstantin Rokossovskij, had previously been purged by Stalin, and spent time being tortured in prison.
The industrial strength and population resources matters absolutely nothing, - if you don't have your act together. One thing in particular: It takes time to build an effective air force! Under onslaught of war, it's not likely that you'll ever be able to do it. And then you will certainly have lost.
There are many ways in which Germany could have won against Soviet. But they all have to assume that USA didn't involve themselves or at least didn't have any foothold in Europe.
But that's easy. Let's say that Hitler hadn't declared war on USA. What would have happened then? Wouldn't it have been politically hard for Roosevelt to arrange a war with Germany, when USA already had its hands full of Japan?
Even greater shift: What if Germany had never interrupted the 'phony war' and gone to attack against France? Isn't it extremely likely that Churchill would have lost political influence in Britain and a peace could have been settled with France and Britain, without any serious fighting?
Germany's defeat in the East depends on so many things that are not given: That they couldn't keep up air superiority - which they definitely would have, without the Western front. That their industries and supply lines where pounded into rubble by US and British air. Also: The Soviet war machine depended a lot on American made trucks.
Eirene has already responded to much of this, so I'll only say a few things. The first paragraph is all so wrong, and yet what most people believe. It's one of the great myths of WW2. That was how the soviets lost! When they won, they did it the same way as everybody else. In painstaking detail and care. Stalin simply had to accept that some generals, who did know how to fight a war the old fashioned way - not the "- Forward, comrades!" -socialist way, were dug out and given command. Some of them, like Konstantin Rokossovskij, had previously been purged by Stalin, and spent time being tortured in prison.
The industrial strength and population resources matters absolutely nothing, - if you don't have your act together. One thing in particular: It takes time to build an effective air force! Under onslaught of war, it's not likely that you'll ever be able to do it. And then you will certainly have lost.
There are many ways in which Germany could have won against Soviet. But they all have to assume that USA didn't involve themselves or at least didn't have any foothold in Europe.
But that's easy. Let's say that Hitler hadn't declared war on USA. What would have happened then? Wouldn't it have been politically hard for Roosevelt to arrange a war with Germany, when USA already had its hands full of Japan?
Even greater shift: What if Germany had never interrupted the 'phony war' and gone to attack against France? Isn't it extremely likely that Churchill would have lost political influence in Britain and a peace could have been settled with France and Britain, without any serious fighting?
Germany's defeat in the East depends on so many things that are not given: That they couldn't keep up air superiority - which they definitely would have, without the Western front. That their industries and supply lines where pounded into rubble by US and British air. Also: The Soviet war machine depended a lot on American made trucks.
Pfft... I said it better:
At first two three years at least in the Eastern front Germany could win the war, but the patriotism of Russians (+the cold!), and Germans slowly losing their advantage in technology over time, and lack of soldiers (both in quantity and quality in west, east and Africa) and lack of resources concluded in losing the war awfully. What is usually forgotten is the effects of War over Economy of Germany. Simply this:
High maintenance of War + Not enough countries to trade (for resources and products) + Lots of casualties in all fronts => Decreasing state of economy in Germany => Lower Budget for Mass use of Technology (+all the previous reasons) => Losing the war
The joke is if Germany hadn't Invaded Russia, Germany could certainly keep its hegemony/dominance over Europe for decades. Neutral Russia would have been very handy to support the war.
I never found any article about the A-10's development that stated Rudel's influence that could actually back up the claim. The only backed up claim regarding Rudel I ever found was that his biography was a must-read for project participators, but direct consultation or work on the project by the man itself, never seen anything state that with sources backing up the claim.
You have a point. I remember some notices in the professional journals from the time, including a picture of Rudel in the A-10 cockpit.
(I used to read bound volumes of old issues at the library, during lunch breaks, when I was younger).
Pierre Sprey certainly did use Rudel's opinions as his model for the A-X. But these were well known. So as in direct consultation, no. But It's also hard to imagine that Sprey didn't contact Rudel at all. I'm not going to plow through a decade of Aviation Week and Flight International, but I don't remember that the notices should have mentioned direct work. No.
Maybe Sprey will write some memoirs before he dies? I wouldn't count on it though.
Pfft... I said it better:
At first
twothree years at least in the Eastern front Germany could win the war, but the patriotism of Russians (+the cold!), and Germans slowly losing their advantage in technology over time, and lack of soldiers (both in quantity and quality in west, east and Africa) and lack of resources concluded in losing the war awfully. What is usually forgotten is the effects of War over Economy of Germany. Simply this:
High maintenance of War + Not enough countries to trade (for resources and products) + Lots of casualties in all fronts => Decreasing state of economy in Germany => Lower Budget for Mass use of Technology (+all the previous reasons) => Losing the war
The joke is if Germany hadn't Invaded Russia, Germany could certainly keep its hegemony/dominance over Europe for decades. Neutral Russia would have been very handy to support the war.
I'm using white as background, so your post was not all that readable to me.
However:
Hitler's two main goals were always to 1: expand eastward, to conquer vast territories for his new German Reich. 2: to destroy communism.
He never wanted the war in the west.
The big factor, in whatever, is air power. The West was always a much bigger problem than the East. It wasn't the invasion of Russia that tripped Germany. It was always the West.
After Luftwaffe lost the BoB, Britain was in effect a big aircraft carrier. As "for decades", that aircraft carrier would only be progressively more mobilized, as would the navy. American help for that was already guaranteed, even if USA was not at war.
Airpower and Russia being strengthened by USA are the most notable factors in your comment which are indeed very important. The factors for Defeat of Germany can be above 20, but determining the essential ones is hard.
But war brings desperate measures and strange strategies. Neutral USSR could easily support Germany with fuel and trading with Russia could be extremely beneficial for both sides. Both leaders did genocide, why not stay in peace!?
Hitler didn't have the insight to see USA would join the war influentially so he thought the western front is finished and he attacked Russia.
Some of the best weapons and fighters of Nazi Germany were designed/invented in 1942-44 when Germany was losing. Not enough investment and military units made those inventions useless (other factors are mentioned in previous comment).
Well, I think I might be out of super-Icons, at least regarding air and WW2, so normal Icons will have to do.
This is the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk. I suspect this aircraft has become an icon as much because of it's shark mouth as its perceived war role. Lots of squadrons of many nationalities painted shark mouths on their P-40'ies. But it does deserve to be an icon by itself. Because it was a very important fighter type for the allies. For China, Burma, Pacific, Mediterranean and North African theaters, in '41 and '42, it was the only fighter aircraft that fulfilled the 2 requirements for being a perfect war-weapon: Capable to do the job, - and available.
It promptly put a stop to Japanese air superiority, and in North Africa it put the Italians and the Germans into an entirely new situation that they never recovered from and which brought them a lot of grief. The only axis fighter in the Mediterranean which had a significant advantage on the P-40 was the new Bf 109F. Additional user value came from having double the range of the Spitfire or Messerschmidt.
The P-40 never could keep up with developments of the Bf 109 or Spitfire. Considering aircraft performance from a later perspective, it's easy to miss that it did splendidly early in the war, if flown right. Against the Japanese, it relied on speed, against the Germans, it relied on turning.
I want to suggest a few ww2 airplane games and simulators that you may enjoy:
(2002)
Good varieties of WW2 airplanes (Germany, GB, USA), but its flight is very difficult. Graphic is tolerable
Seems good, from 2009.
A masterpiece of nextgen! has both airplanes and tanks.
Or you could simply explain how I was wrong and how it really was from your own experience
my own experince? i am not that old. however RAS do have exact copies of the Order 227 and the Order 270.
Penal battalions made their appearance on september 1941 because of the order 227 - "not another step back". On the whole militant front there has been no more than 3 of such penal battalions. In a single division that should be no more than one penal battlaion. At the same time, daily, amount of militant fronts could consist of 6-7 millions of people and very few of these people were on PB, because maximum service time in those battalions were 3 months. And if people perform feats of courage or were wounded during their service in PB, they would be moved back to their former unit of the army. Which means that such battalion or penal company couldn't make any sound impact on the result of the whole battle across entire front.
But penal battalions were used on very difficult and hard areas of the front. Their goal were: to conduct reconnaissance in force, to breakthrough of the front line of defense on the enemy, taking and holding of the height of strategic importance, assault for distraction on the enemy, harassing the enemy, cover on retreat of friendly forces. Penal battalions were planned to used in the areas of the front which involves active hostilities. And yes they were on front line of the attack, so they could participate in actual combat instead of sitting in the rear.
Regular officiers were in command of PBs. Some were ordered to that positions, some volunteered. Because penalty category of all officers was on the step above than the rest of the army. Triple payment. One year of service counted for three. Besides, there were little difference between standart rifle battalion and penal battalion. Besides command chain in PB were shorter.
Roster of the Penal Battalion: from awols to thiefs, those who raised his hand to the senior officer and embezzler intendant. Deserters.
During entire GPW there were formed 67 PBs in total and around 1000+ Penal Companies, but not at the same time. Only one PB were present during entire GPW, because for the most of the time PBs were disbanded after few months. By the order 227: 1-3 BPs on the militant front, 5-10 Penal Companies for the army. Keep in mind that during entire GPW through army went 34 millions of people, and 428k were sent to PB and PCs, this is less than 1.5% and actually, if you think of it, that's a lot of people. But it doesn't mean that PBs won the war.
Never forget that order 227 and order 270 were created in order to maintain iron discipline during most crucial time of the war, in 1942.
Any regimental commander had rights to send any soldeir or sergeant to the PB, but not the officer. Reasons why people were sent to PB:
Not following orders, cowardice or for insult of senior commander. For willful misconduct, like sleeping on the post which lead to mishap or death of other soldiers. For desertion. For surrendering to the enemy when you had means to continue fighting, staying on the enemy territory without making attempts to break through. Another reason, for the rear: for being late to work more than 20 minutes, twice. After the court, term of imprisonment could have been changed to service in the PB. Forgery of dicuments (like medical certificate of unfitness).
Term of service in the Penal Battalion.
From one to three months. All people released from PB were also restored in their rights and rank. 10 years imprisonment were equal to 3 months in BP. From 5 to 8 years of imprisonment were equal 2 months. Less than 5 years were equal to 1 month in BP. Any injury, even light one, annulled the military crime - "shame washed by blood." Injured was moved to hospital and from there to his regiment in the same rank, rights and medal. For taking a "tongue", like enemy officer, soldiers could be released from the service in BP as well. Also soldier could have been released from the service in BP for acts of battle honor. For distinguished acts of battle honor soldier of the penal battalion could have been awarded with medals, like Order of Glory.
Families of soldiers serving in BP. Famalies were receiving pensions on a basis of the rank of the soldier before his demotion to PB. There also was a pensions for the disabled of BP.
! But not for offenders, people convicted of banditry and political prisoners.
In some cases regular officers of the BP could increase time on service for soldiers or even summary execute a soldier. For desertion, as example.
Equipement of the BP. Light firearms. Rifles, carabines and assault rifles (well ok... smgs i believe). In very rare cases mortar or machine gun. For example - PCompany could have rifles and carabines, when PB could have smgs, mortar and/or machine gun.
! And no god damn it, remove this idiotic idea of one rifle for 5 soldiers from your head, it is just stupid. We are talking about unit of the army, led by regular officer.
Casualties of the BPs were x4 x6 time higher than in regular units of the army.
As a matter of fact before RA, BPs were firstly deployed by Germans, and the order 227 was, in fact, made on a basis of German BPs. System of penal-correctional military units was used in Wehrmacht since 1936 (not sure about that.)
Barrier troops.
Barrier troops were in use for a very long time, since Peter I no less. And so they were used during GPW. Barrier troops never followed BPs and never stood behind their backs (because BP had nowhere to run). Because Barrier troops never were deployed near battle line, instead they position themselfs on the possible way of retreat or control points and roads near the rear. The goal of Barrier Troops was to create traffic control system near the rear, because civilians, desertes, retreating units - this mass of people that were going somewhere had to be controled and supervised. Also one of their task was to separate deserters and cowards from honest soldiers.
By the order 227. On basis of the army to create 3-5 well equipped Barrier Troops, 200 soldiers strong each. Put them in rear of unstable divisions and to order these troops, in the case of panic and disorderly retreat, to fire at will at cowards and deserters. Which doesn't mean that soldiers that received permission to retreat were also shot down on sight.
In simple words, Barrier Troops were created to stop disorderly retreat. Retreating soldiers after initial examination were reorganized into units to be sent back the location of the army, to the HQ. Deserters and cowards were sent to Special Department or executed.
Keep in mind that 93% of stopped fleeing soldiers were coming back to their divisions and regiments without any penalties.
Last Barrier Troops detachment were created in autumn of 1944.
Well that is about it. Don't wanna do spellcheck - already wasted enough time on this. And yes i am attacking you personally because of your bs.
As example:
"Just take a look at how the Soviets fought. Classic Zerg Rush*. A good deal of the time, a significant number of soldiers going to battle didn't even have a gun**, they had to loot it from fallen comrades. "
Jesus H. Christ. Just re-read yourself. *You are talking about militant front up to 10-15 km in lenght, with several millions people on each side. And guess what? this is how war looked like back then. **Stalin wasted a lot of human lives in order to to industrialize Russia in very short period of time - in less than 15 years. And you are talking about lack of firearms? First PPSh was created before GPW even started. Post revolutionary SR had a lot of firearms, have no doubt in that. What was lacking were planes, tanks, logistics and proper military education. Because reception conditions in the Red Army and the strategy of war for SR are entire different topic full of facepalms. Not to mention that initial collapse was Stalin's fault entirely.
"Granted, it wasn't only because the Soviets didn't have enough guns, but also because the Soviet officiers knew the fatalities would be so high that it ultimately mattered little if everyone or only every second one had a gun."
Jesus H. Christ... *rolls eyes*. Yeah right. AGAIN. Country that just survived a civil war - suddenly suffer from lack of guns? Did you even put some thoughts into this? Just a little logic?
You do realize that by your ignorance you insult people? No? Well take this into consideration, please, next time you post some bullshit. Or even better - don't post bullshit at all.
A little less cocainum please.
You do realize that by your ignorance you insult people? No? Well take this into consideration, please, next time you post some bullshit. Or even better - don't post bullshit at all.
A little less cocainum please.
Oh my dear lord ... you honestly dare to feel indignated and call me out for insulting people because I said something wrong and in the next sentence you accuse me of being a drug addict?
I thank you for your in depth explanation about penal battallions and such, but you can't honestly try to ride the high horse of moral superiourity and then just drop an insult after admonishing me. Even worse as my "insult" was having made a mistake and you threw a fit (and only explained why it was wrong after I challenged you to do something more than just throw a temper tantrum), but you actually insult me personally.
I don't know if this is what goes as an academic discourse over there, but where I come from, if you talk BS, they don't only tell you "you talk BS", they also tell you exactly what was BS and why it is BS. So next time, you go ahead and correct people from the get go. You'll find it is much easier to maintain a civilized discussion when any singular argument is not prefaced with a bitching volley and that any criticism recipients are much eager to reflect when they are confronted with corrections instead of petty insults.
Because that whole thing about insulting people's intellect goes both ways. I made mistakes because I didn't know better. Your insult was (aside from that whole drug thing) to prevent me from learning with your earlier remarks that did nothing to correct me. How do you think I feel about it when all I'm being told is that I'm talking BS and the guy telling me so doesn't even bother to let me know the real deal.
So, thank you again for the informations. As for your petty insults, go blow your attitude, I'm sure your ego will enjoy it!
Oh my dear lord ... you honestly dare to feel indignated and call me out for insulting people because I said something wrong and in the next sentence you accuse me of being a drug addict?
cocainum is a sorcastic remark. called to show point of view of wastern mass media about russia. ironically enough, actors can't even speak russian.
movie is called red heat btw.
Contrary to what you may believe, Arnold Schwarzenegger movies are not my shtick. And contrary to what you evidently believe, movies in general are not my shtick. In fact, I don't even own a TV since three years now and hadn't had the last one plugged in for again at least two years prior to that.
If you want any sarcasm to be recognized as such, choose your references more carefully.
well i assumed that if you build your arguments based on pop culture such as "enemy at the gates" - you should know about cocainum.
well i assumed that if you build your arguments based on pop culture such as "enemy at the gates" - you should know about cocainum.
I did not.
I build it around what must have been massively embellished accounts of penal battalions on various articles and documentaries.
I have no need for patriotic propaganda flicks like Enemy At The Gates, Fury or whatever.
riiiiight.
and on basis of these articles and documentaries RA had 1 rifle on 5 men? or officers were just sending soldiers to die just for laughs?
i wonder what those docementaries are. and who is the author.
riiiiight.
and on basis of these articles and documentaries RA had 1 rifle on 5 men? or officers were just sending soldiers to die just for laughs?
i wonder what those docementaries are. and who is the author.
I never said anything about one rifle for five men. I believe my statement was akin one rifle for two. And I most definately NEVER EVER said anything about officers sending people to death for shits and giggles.
You may be mixing people up here.
A good deal of the time, a significant number of soldiers going to battle didn't even have a gun, they had to loot it from fallen comrades. Granted, it wasn't only because the Soviets didn't have enough guns, but also because the Soviet officiers knew the fatalities would be so high that it ultimately mattered little if everyone or only every second one had a gun.
really?
however you are skipping on articles and documentaries.
really?
however you are skipping on articles and documentaries.
Grim realities of war do not equate sending people to death for funzies.
The very existence of penal battalions prove that point. Strategy sometimes requires the sacrifice of soldiers to ultimately secure an operational target and victory or to minimize losses on a strategical level as opposed to tactical losses at any given engagement.
Do I really have to remind you that one of the more perilous duties for penal units was to clear minefields for example? Obviously the officiers knew what they did and obviously it was decided that any losses resulting in that process were worth doing it.
If you want to argue that kind of decisions was just sending people to their deaths for fun, then don't point that argument at me, point it at the officers throughout the human history that made such decisions.
Really, who's posting BS now?
"Granted, it wasn't only because the Soviets didn't have enough guns, but also because the Soviet officiers knew the fatalities would be so high that it ultimately mattered little if everyone or only every second one had a gun."
Jesus H. Christ... *rolls eyes*. Yeah right. AGAIN. Country that just survived a civil war - suddenly suffer from lack of guns? Did you even put some thoughts into this? Just a little logic?
You do realize that by your ignorance you insult people? No? Well take this into consideration, please, next time you post some bullshit. Or even better - don't post bullshit at all.
A little less cocainum please.
7.6/10 movie on IMDb disagrees with you!
Really, who's posting BS now?
hmm let me think.
my opinion based on materials you may find in Berlin-Karlshorst museum. RAS (as for Russian Academy of Science). Russian Military Historical Society which exists for 108 years.
For example copy of order 227 you may find even now online on the side of Ministry of Defense of RF. Or you may see it live in Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Moscow.
I can also bring memoirs of both german soldiers, russians soldiers and those soldiers and officers who served in the penal battalions and why officers were hiding Order of Glody medal.
However i consider memoirs are rather biased sources of the information, so i would rather not use them.
You however, didn't bother to deliver into our conversation not a single source. Like articles you spoke of, or documentries you mentioned. This is about who is talking bs.
Just a side not, to clear mine field with artillery before major assault is just better way to deal with it. Just a remark.
hmm let me think.
my opinion based on materials you may find in Berlin-Karlshorst museum. RAS (as for Russian Academy of Science). Russian Military Historical Society which exists for 108 years.
For example copy of order 227 you may find even now online on the side of Ministry of Defense of RF. Or you may see it live in Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Moscow.
I can also bring memoirs of both german soldiers, russians soldiers and those soldiers and officers who served in the penal battalions and why officers were hiding Order of Glody medal.
However i consider memoirs are rather biased sources of the information, so i would rather not use them.
You however, didn't bother to deliver into our conversation not a single source. Like articles you spoke of, or documentries you mentioned. This is about who is talking bs.
Just a side not, to clear mine field with artillery before major assault is just better way to deal with it. Just a remark.
Not a single of those points have anything to do about what I talked about in the comment ...
For someone who likes to say I don't supply sources (how about you start at Wikipedia and then do a little wikiwalk, read through the cited internet articles, keep in mind though that wikipedia articles are constantly edited), you are surprisingly adept at picking sentences from my comments and then twist it around into something I never said.
To reiterate: you accused me I was insinuated officers threw soldiers into battle to die for fun. I said I never said anyone did such a thing for fun, they did it because they had reasons to order soldiers to perform tasks that are incredibly dangerous up until the point of being a death sentence.
I was talking about utalitarian decesions. Decisions like that happened, they did also happen in WW2, they did also happen in the fighting between Germany and the Soviet Republic and they certainly did happen in penal battalions.
I distinctly remember having read an excerpt from Suvurov's Inside the Soviet Army book about those shtrafbats having been used to clear minefields. I remember that because I had to make a presentation about it. I don't own the book, or else I'd look up the exact page for you, but there you have your source if internet articles doesn't already equate with "google search it". Feel free to read it.
Now, unless you can prove me that Suvurov was talking BS too, let me repeat one of my earlier sentiments. Take your attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
And if you ever think about answering to this or any other post of mine in the future, the answer the points I made, not the points you invent and say I made so you can talk BS.
But you don't have to, because at this point I am pretty much convinced you're not interested in a civil discussion as much as you are simply searching for comments to twist around to suit your agenda of accusing me to talk some more BS.
...And here's another Icon for you. (That I post this item is not to be perceived as any reward for - or celebration of - Stalin or Putin, ...just saying.)
This is the T34-85. The best tank of WW2. I was first going to post a picture of its forerunner, the T34, as it's more typical for much of WW2. But it was flawed. Mainly, it wasn't so practical to fight in. And then the day, this day, the 70'th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, put me more in the mood of the final stages of the war. So the bigger turret it is.
Edit: Just some words about why it's the best: It could do the job and it was available, i.e. there in generous numbers. Always the two most important attributes. It could be built in big numbers, was easily transported to the front. It was tactically very mobile as well as strategically mobile. It was well protected and highly salvageable. The Sherman also has a lot going for it, but the T34 just offers so much better protection. It doesn't even have a gasoline engine.
Normal, decent human beings (who had nothing to do with Stalin's own, shameful atrocities), from the Soviet army, liberated and then rescued the remaining 7,000 victims in Auschwitz, Jan 27, 1945. And documented the crimes (1,1 mil murdered, according current history writing - P.S. Rudolf Hoss, the first commandant, estimated 2,5 to 3 million) and futile attempts to destroy evidence. (Most of Auschwits still surviving prisoners, some 60,000, were unfortunately forced to death-march towards German KZ camps before the arrival of the red army).
Another big plus for the whole T-34 family was its ease of operation. The simplicity of T-34 controls meant that practically anyone who ever drove a tractor could drive the tank.
All that aside, the T-34 brought along a massive design advantage over convential designs, the sloped armor. It meant that every shot that didn't connect in a perfect 90° angle relative to the plating angle, had to penetrate more armor than with conventional vertical designs.
Retour en haut