Reddit reviews When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies)

The Soviet army was wholly unprepared for any large long term conflict. They learned that lesson in Finland and was common knowledge among the whole command structure, and punctuated by the initial German invasion. It's amazing the kind of things you can learn when you actually read books about history and study things. Here's a great book that you would learn a lot from (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0700608990/ref=yo_ii_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1). Only 9 bucks! You have to be willing to learn of course.

Also, holy shit 100 million people! It's so crazy that Europe, with a population of only around 400 million people at the this time, had literally 1/4 of their population killed in Soviet prisons and yet people remember the Nazis as being bad. Yep, that sure is a crazy and I'm sure wholly realistic and rational numbers and not you just pulling numbers out of your own asshole.

When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler

You can find it on Amazon here, or, if you're a university student like me, you might be able to download a free e-book using online library resources.

I'm currently reading When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, by David Glantz.

It is based mostly on Soviet archives which opened to the West after the Iron Curtain fell. It is quite interesting, but can be incredibly dry at times. Lots of "General Sosoandsovski's Xth Rifle Division attacked General von Soandsohoffen's Xth Panzer Corps near Bumfuckėžys, Lithuania, supported by..." for pages and pages and pages.

https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

Seems like it's too long, so I'll split it up in two here:

General accounts:

When Titans Clashed

Russia at War

Thunder in the East

Absolute War

Hitler's War in the East

The Road to Stalingrad

The Road to Berlin

A Writer at War

THE ROLE OF THE SOVIET UNION IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR: A Re-examination

Why Stalin's Soldiers Fought: The Red Army's Military Effectiveness in World War II

If you're interested in memoirs I'd suggest:

Blood on the Shores

Over the Abyss

Sniper on the Eastern Front

GUNS AGAINST THE REICH: Memoirs of an Artillery Officer on the Eastern Front

PANZER DESTROYER: Memoirs of a Red Army Tank Commander

Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-1945

Red Road From Stalingrad: Recollections Of A Soviet Infantryman

Red Star Against the Swastika: The Story of a Soviet Pilot over the Eastern Front

Penalty Strike: The Memoirs of a Red Army Penal Company Commander, 1943-45

BUT NOT FOR THE FUEHRER

Through Hell for Hitler

A Stranger to Myself: The Inhumanity of War : Russia, 1941-1944

Barbarossa:

War Without Garlands: Barbarossa 1941/42

BARBAROSSA DERAILED: THE BATTLE FOR SMOLENSK 10 JULY-10 SEPTEMBER 1941 VOLUME 1: The German Advance, The Encirclement Battle, and the First and Second Soviet Counteroffensives, 10 July-24 August 1941

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East

Kiev 1941

Operation Typhoon: Hitler's March on Moscow, October 1941

THE VIAZ'MA CATASTROPHE, 1941: The Red Army's Disastrous Stand against Operation Typhoon

THE DEFENSE OF MOSCOW 1941: The Northern Flank

What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa

War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941

Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union

> This article seems to have some interesting points

I'm sorry, but it's nothing but pop history and armchair general's what-ifs IMHO.

It doesn't account for potential potent counter-attacks on the South flank of the over-stretched AGC, it assumes that the Soviets would themselves surround at Bryansk, it assumes that one of the most regular meteorological event of the Russian climate wouldn't happen, it assumes that AGC somehow has enough fuel and supplie to actually lead such a battle, it assumes that the Soviet would stand still and don't counter-attack everywhere they can, etc.

If you want an excellent book to get a good grasp on the situation of the Easter Front, I strongly commend When Titans Clashed from David Glantz – US Army historian specialized in Soviet military history – which is a cheap and incredibly good source of informations.

You'd think they would learn a thing or two about Winter Warfare after the Winter War no? They ''failed'' in the Winter war because of poor leadership (result of the purges in the Army) that sent Divisions from the Kiev military district to Finland without proper equipment.

Russians in WWII were much better prepared for winter. Just look at how the Red Army's major offensive operations in 1941-1942 were performed exclusively in Winter, when they knew they had an edge on the Germans.

> they just had unlimited supply of cannon fodder.

The manpower balance never went beyond 3:1 in Soviet favor in the entire war. Also combat losses ratio was around 1:1.3 in German favor, when you exclude the murder of POWs by the Germans.

TL;DR pick up a book on the Eastern Front and educate yourself. I'd recommend this one

"when titans clashed" by david glantz
examines all military campaigns in the east in great detail and even details the 10+ years of turmoil and upheaval within the soviet ranks prior to 1939 - stalin's purges, internal politics etc - which left the red army woefully underprepared for the war when it hit in 1941.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

The T-34, and especially in terms of its sloped armour, was some of the most advanced in the world at that time. Initially in 1941 the Pz IV was armed with a low velocity 75mm gun. This was entirely inadequate against both the T-34 and the KV-1. Later, the F and G series would reach parity with the T-34, being armed with a High V 75mm. But by the time the G series came out, 1943, the Panther outclassed the Pz IV, and tank like the IS-2 and T-34-85 also outclassed the Pz IV.

As for the Russian deficiencies, they largely came from the Great Officer Purge of 1937. The Soviets and the Germans pioneered mobile warfare during the joint research Treaty of Rapallo. Yet by 1937, while Heinz Guderian was writing his book, basically outlining German wartime doctrine, the Soviets were busy arresting and executing all of its top leadership. This was especially true of the officers who championed armor theory similar to the Germans (who were also veterans of Rapallo). And, in classic Stalinist Purge fashion, these experienced officers were replaced by rookies who lacked experience commanding large formations, let alone any experience commanding in actual combat conditions. Further, these new officers had military regulations drummed into them. Officers were "encouraged" to follow only the textbook maneuvers and dispositions (and when you get your job because the last guy was executed, it makes a person far less likely to argue). When it came to the war, the Soviets were indoctrinated in how they should fight. This led to many mistakes which would have to be corrected during 1942 an '43. The real flaw of the Red Army in 1941 and early 1942 wasnt that they lacked technology or the tactics to use it. Its that they wernt able to properly employ it, except in rigid and obvious attacks which the Germans could easily identify, or simply ignore. By 1943, the Red Army resurrected theory developed at Rapallo and created an army very much the equal of the German army. Further, the Soviets perfected the maskirovka or deception. Not only could the Soviets create breakthroughs just as well as the Germans, they were able to deceive the German army as to where the attack would fall. This would draw off reserves from the initial breakthrough, which would only allow the exploitation phase to start earlier and last longer. In fact, by Operation Bagration, the Soviets were only really limited by their logistical train in how deep they could penetrate the German line.

If youre interested in a good book on the Eastern Front, David Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Glantz is an expert on the Eastern front, and he goes through the Eastern Front from the Russian perspective. He discusses their failings and their origins, then later how the Red Army overcame those flaws and created an army which, by 1944, resembled the German army of 1940.

My understanding is that there is consensus on the USSR's motives for invading Poland, which was to by time for the inevitable war with Germany.

I've been reading this recently, and the author sure interprets the things that way.

https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

Even if the ratio was 1:2, that's still a far cry away from the soviets using human waves

This essay does a good job evaluating german and soviet causalities: http://sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/publications-library/cat_view/33-strom-thurmond-institute/153-sti-publications-by-subject-area/158-history

Skip to page 13-14 to dig right into casualty comparison.

For further reading this book is high quality and on the shorter side:

https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

Eigentlich war der Krieg an der Ostfront schon von Anfang an verloren. Wen das Thema interessiert:

When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler

Thanks for the video with barebones information and kids animation. Here are some academic sources that you can cross-reference it with.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-26324710/the-rommel-myth

https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc

Most of my information is from sporadic readings of Wikipedia over the years and following /r/AskHistorians and /r/badhistory. I can recommend the Soviet Storm documentary series, which should be on YouTube. It gives an almost neutral overview of the Eastern Front, although it kinda glosses over Soviet war crimes.

I've also heard good things about When Titans Clashed, but I haven't read it myself.

> 36,183 IL-2s were produced between 1941 - 1945.

IL-2s were known for being dependable after working out teething problems during first trials. Very widely known of taking awful amounts of damage and still being able to fly home. Pilots loved them mostly because of this fact. It was dubbed the "Flying Tank" due to the amount of damage it could handle and still be flyable. I'd say that is some great quality. Just because an aircraft is produced in huge numbers, does not make it shit.

>Should I also check casualty numbers of WW2 alone to prove that Russia tends to take the brute force approach?

Being that Russia was on the offensive for nearly 4 years of the war, I'd say that's quite an easy thing to grasp. A defensive military will almost always take less casualties than a military on the offensive. This is a commonly accepted fact that has been known since the dawn of warfare.

>That's the thing with having lots of resources and a chain of command focused only on wining.

What else are you supposed to concentrate on during a war? Kill ratios? Propaganda? I'd say winning is by far the most important aspect of a war. Wouldn't you agree?

>They can just keep throwing bodies at a problem until it goes away.

No. They did no such thing. I recommend reading this book and this book especially because it addresses the Goebbels propaganda of "Soviet human wave" bullshit. You realize that's where this thought comes from correct? Nazi propaganda. It was meant to make Soviets look like barbaric animals....and it apparently still holds salt in some minds today. Your's for example.

>Look at the battle of Stalingrad. 1,129,619 casualties, 4,431 lost tanks, and 2,769 lost aircraft.

First off, your numbers are ridiculously way off. Approximately 4400 tanks? The Soviets lost around 1500 tanks total. Your number is probably including half tracks, SPGs, and things of that nature which makes it look like something it is clearly not. When adding up Axis vehicles total, it nearly triples the losses if I simply pass them all off as "tanks".

"Look at the Battle of Stalingrad. ~900,000 casualties, ~1,000 aircraft, ~700 tanks (actual tanks, not armor in general) and 5,500 artillery pieces for the Axis." I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. It was the absolute biggest loss of human life in the history of warfare and there were huge losses on both sides.

>This is also the same military force that had a secondary line of soldiers behind the front lines that was ordered to shoot any deserters running from the battle.

Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary. The NKVD attachments were there to corral deserters or broken down men who could not take the front anymore. Most were put into hospitals. A minuscule amount were executed. Let me make this a point, every one of the belligerents in WW2 executed deserters.

Back to the NKVD:

>The order also directed that each Army must create "blocking detachments" (barrier troops (заградотряд, заградительный отряд)) which would capture or shoot "cowards" and fleeing panicked troops at the rear. Both measures were cited in the preamble of the order as having been successfully used by the Germans during their winter retreat. The requirement for Armies to maintain companies of barrier troops was withdrawn after just three months, on October 29, 1942. Intended to galvanize the morale of the hard-pressed Soviet Army and emphasize patriotism, it had a generally detrimental effect and was not consistently implemented by commanders who viewed diverting troops to create barrier units as a waste of manpower, so by October 1942 the idea of regular blocking units was quietly dropped.[3] By 20 November 1944 the blocking units were officially disbanded.

So after 3 whole months the blocking detachments were not a thing anymore. And most commanders did not execute anyone retreating. A lot were simply put back at the front. To think this happened throughout the war is naive at best.

So much of what you said is just ignorance. Hopefully not willfully. I'd highly recommend the two books I mentioned. It shows the way the Soviets truly operated and quite frankly, it's damn impressive.

Edit for quotes

Read this book, it's written by a German soldier from his eastern front experiences.

What exactly do you mean by Nazi anyway, do you mean a solider specifically in the Waffen SS (the military wing of the Nazi party) or more broadly a German solider?

Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis were German. There were many in the German army that were no friends of the Nazis, indeed there were many times they planned attempts on Hitler's life.

If you want to learn more about WW2, then I would also suggest this written from the Soviet perspective. It's concerned mostly with overall strategy, so most people might find it boring, but I find it incredibly interesting. If you don't understand the eastern front in ww2 then you don't understand the history of the war, imho.