Why the WW2 Red Army was/is so dramatically underestimated ?

[Macaquerie]

There's a reason I brought up rommel specifically. Tasher's argument is that the soviets had some grand strategy beyond throwing bodies at the germans until they were dead and instead totally deceived them with their masterful strategy.

As brought up before in this thread, the Soviets did have a pretty thorough and intricate doctrine of deep operations, but many of the theorists were executed in Stalin's purge, so that when it came time to implement this strategy, the Red Army had to make do with bumbling political officers and half-trained conscripts and the Germans ran circles around them. However, by the end of the war they had built up an experienced officer corps leading seasoned veteran troops, whereas the Germans had been progressively worn down by attrition and political purges of their own, the tables decisively turned. Many of the late war Soviet operations like Bagration were tactical master strokes on the same level as anything the Allies or Germans pulled off, and while those victories didn't come cheap, the Soviets made the best use of what they had at their disposal.

[Ripster42]

Yes. Deep operations

As brought up before in this thread, the Soviets did have a pretty thorough and intricate doctrine of deep operations, but many of the theorists were executed in Stalin's purge, so that when it came time to implement this strategy, the Red Army had to make do with bumbling political officers and half-trained conscripts and the Germans ran circles around them. However, by the end of the war they had built up an experienced officer corps leading seasoned veteran troops, whereas the Germans had been progressively worn down by attrition and political purges of their own, the tables decisively turned. Many of the late war Soviet operations like Bagration were tactical master strokes on the same level as anything the Allies or Germans pulled off, and while those victories didn't come cheap, the Soviets made the best use of what they had at their disposal.

Again, tasher is talking about the soviets having great strategy, then effectively said there was no second front until the soviets had already beaten the germans in russia. My argument here, is that the "great strategy" wouldn't have been so effective if the germans had more of their top tacticians (it's hard to call rommel one of their top strategists, but from what I've gathered, he was one of their top tacticians) fighting in the eastern front instead of dicking around in africa.

Let's be clear. I think germany would have lost anyway, as they needed african resources so needed to be there, but lets not pretend like the african front had no impact on the eastern one, or that for a large part of the war the soviets were basically bumbling idiots, as you mention. Remember what the title of the thread is.

[Eldar45]

It's not loving the Soviet Union that to point out the reality that it shouldered the majority of the burden of fightign the Nazis and beat them fair and square, without being the faceless butchers that the Germans liked to portray them. I barely have more esteem for the Soviets than I have for the Nazis (which is very little indeed) but it is a disservice to history to pretend they sucked at warfare when they beat the force that rolled over the rest of Europe. They had their moments of stupidity, but so did every other belligerent, especially the Germans and Japanese.

They did suck at warfare though. The numbers tell the story here. They won at a staggeringly high cost. I'm sure that if wasn't for the fact the Germans had little in the way of steel and oil then they would have actually defeated the Soviets.

Without the Western allies the Soviets probably would have lost. The western allies from 1942 on tied up a pretty significant portion of the Wehrmecht. I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't do a majority of the fighting, I'm saying that people say the Soviets won and the Western Allies did nothing to help, and that is wrong.

[Jin]

Ehmm... T-34 is probably the most versatile and suited to modifications platform of the WW2. To say that T-34 was not modified to counter Tiger and Panther tanks is ridiculous. 5 months after encountering Tigers and Panthers at the battle of Kursk, Soviets already mounted mass production of the T-34-85, a 85mm cannon fitted version which is comparable to the german 8.8cm (short) and 7.5cm Panther cannon. There were even 100mm D-10T versions, but they were considered excessively powerful and unwieldy for these, barely 30t chassis. T-34 chassis were also massively used to produce long 85mm, 100mm and (a single prototype) 122mm SPGs, which were more than adequate not only to knock a Tiger or a Panther out, but proved sufficient for late war Tiger 2 and Ferdinand tanks as well. T-34 was also used to produce concepts like T-43 (basically up-armored version, comparable to Panther tank in that regard).
For a list of modifications you can check here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34_variants

Thanks for telling, I forgot about that, but I didnt say it didnt get modified, also not not modified, I just forgot to add it. But it wasnt a huge modification that made it unable to be mass produced, The tiger tanks, how awesome they were were just not good to be produced, something Hitler knew but didn't care for, while not all programs are true info, he wanted bigger, larger tanks instead of mass produced tanks, a modified panther (again) would be better then a new uber tiger, I've seen some prototypes, a 16m high tank with a gun of a ship.. designed by Porché i believe, I still don't get how the '' later '' Hitler didn't see that such a tank just does not work.

[Macaquerie]

They did suck at warfare though. The numbers tell the story here. They won at a staggeringly high cost. I'm sure that if wasn't for the fact the Germans had little in the way of steel and oil then they would have actually defeated the Soviets.

Without the Western allies the Soviets probably would have lost. The western allies from 1942 on tied up a pretty significant portion of the Wehrmecht. I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't do a majority of the fighting, I'm saying that people say the Soviets won and the Western Allies did nothing to help, and that is wrong.

Between the fall of France and D-Day, the Allies were pretty much a non-factor in the European theater, and what fighting they did do was mostly against Italian or Vichy French forces with maybe the odd German division mixed in there to stiffen morale, while something like 85% of all German troops were deployed on the Eastern front. What really doomed the Nazis in WWII was, well, the fact of them being fucking Nazis. If they had actually governed the territories they occupied with the slightest bit of good will, they could have used the resentment of populace against the Soviet regime to bolster their own manpower and resources.

[Shalcker]

the main problem of the red army was stalin. He killed / murdered 3 quarters of the officers before the war against finland, because of political reasons. The remaining officers didnt dare anything that would not be "politically correct" in stalins sense.

That is also myth, actually - 11 thousands officers (8% of total) were "repressed" in 1937, and 4.5 thousands (2.5% of total) were in 1938 - and about half of those came back into Army later. Most were dismissed for disciplinary violations like alcoholism.

They had lack of officers due to constantly creating new units in preparation for war, but they also had highest quantity of officers per soldier required for their army structure - one per six, compared to 1 per 29 for Wermacht or 1 per 15 for Britain.

Also, repressions on highest generals mostly removed least educated - generals had 29% with high military education before repressions, and 52% in 1941 after repressions.

[josykay]

Thanks for telling, I forgot about that, but I didnt say it didnt get modified, also not not modified, I just forgot to add it. But it wasnt a huge modification that made it unable to be mass produced, The tiger tanks, how awesome they were were just not good to be produced, something Hitler knew but didn't care for, while not all programs are true info, he wanted bigger, larger tanks instead of mass produced tanks, a modified panther (again) would be better then a new uber tiger, I've seen some prototypes, a 16m high tank with a gun of a ship.. designed by Porché i believe, I still don't get how the '' later '' Hitler didn't see that such a tank just does not work.

Not "Prototypes". Engineers drawings. Which are kind of pointless, because, they are just design studies.
And the Panther was about to be extensively modified. They were supposed to massproduce Ausf. F in early 1945, not only with a new turret, that, in addition to offering more armor protection, much better optics, which even saved weight! And they planned equip it with the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71, the Tiger 2's main armament, which would have, while the Panther was able to still punch holes in every tank employed on both fronts, massivly increased it's firepower.

How ever, I agree, that the development of tanks like the E-100 and crap was essentially a massive waste, and the whole concept of the E-series to streamline production was way to late, since it only started in the late war. They pretty much knew, that Tiger 2, and Jagdtiger were at the absolute treshhold of practical usefullness. Even if you ignore all weaknesses, their weight already made it difficult to use them, why even bother, making tanks twice as heavy?

[Gaaz]

That is also myth, actually - 11 thousands officers (8% of total) were "repressed" in 1937, and 4.5 thousands (2.5% of total) were in 1938 - and about half of those came back into Army later. Most were dismissed for disciplinary violations like alcoholism.

They had lack of officers due to constantly creating new units in preparation for war, but they also had highest quantity of officers per soldier required for their army structure - one per six, compared to 1 per 29 for Wermacht or 1 per 15 for Britain.

Also, repressions on highest generals mostly removed least educated - generals had 29% with high military education before repressions, and 52% in 1941 after repressions.

According to historians Lloyd Clark and David Glantz, based on their work in Russian declassified archives, 80% of officers that were persecuted in the Purge were reinstated by 1941. So much more than a half actually. Basically, as you correctly say, the Great Purge is another myth. In reality, the scale was much smaller than often advertised, and cases mainly included things like "inappropriate behavior not fitting an officer" (basically being drunk or absent on a post). Most punishments were temporary suspensions and discharges. Things that are to be expected in an army that is less than 20 years old and is barely out of a civil war.
That said, there were exceptions and political killings as well. Some officers were executed because they were believed to be members of the Trotsky group for example. In case someone is not familiar with this term, Leon Trotsky was an extremist communist who believed in "constant revolution". He was in charge of the "terror brigade" during the Civil War. According to him (in simple terms), each worker should take up arms and overthrow any government no matter the cost all over the world. But to soften up governments to be vulnerable and raise civil unrest, acts of terror were necessary. Being members of his group or simply having ties to them was considered an offence enough to be permanently removed from the army.

Not "Prototypes". Engineers drawings. Which are kind of pointless, because, they are just design studies.
And the Panther was about to be extensively modified. They were supposed to massproduce Ausf. F in early 1945, not only with a new turret, that, in addition to offering more armor protection, much better optics, which even saved weight! And they planned equip it with the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71, the Tiger 2's main armament, which would have, while the Panther was able to still punch holes in every tank employed on both fronts, massivly increased it's firepower.

How ever, I agree, that the development of tanks like the E-100 and crap was essentially a massive waste, and the whole concept of the E-series to streamline production was way to late, since it only started in the late war. They pretty much knew, that Tiger 2, and Jagdtiger were at the absolut spire of practical usefullness. Even if you ignore all weaknesses, their weight already made it difficult to use them, why even bother, making tanks twice as heavy?

Panther modifications (IMO) fall into the same category as development of Maus and E100 tanks. Too much of what Germans planned for it was good on paper, but extremely unrealistic. For example new, better protected turret - chassis was already at the weight limit. There was no possibility to add more weight to the tank, because current suspension could not support it. It would have to be redesigned to be similar to a Tiger chassis, but that defeated the whole modification purpose (being extremely expensive and difficult to repair / maintain). Hence, they tried to reduce tank's weight by installing gas-turbine engines late 1944. First prototypes indeed became lighter, but also became grossly underpowered and fuel hungry (you need much more HP out of a gas-turbine engine to be on par with petrol or diesel engine due to power curve distribution). Almost a year was spent designing and prototyping these engines.
Installation of the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 is a joke, surely. It was such an overkill. There was nothing in the allied arsenal that 7.5cm or 8.8cm (L/56) could not punch through. And I feel sorry for the loader:

Last three on the right are 7,5cm Kwk 42 L/70 Panther munition, 8,8 cm L/56 Tiger 1 and 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 Tiger 2. Anyone who has seen the acrobatics needed to load a Panther cannon would likely feel the same. (3:26 on the video)

[Nadiru]

The Red Army is understated because Russians have been a/the boogeyman for the US for a century. The reality of the matter is that in 1942, Uncle Sam helped keep Uncle Joe afloat by sending enough transportation machinery to move the majority of Soviet manufacturing plant out of Nazi hands. Uncle Joe then used those newly moved factories to produce weaponry to repel the Nazis out of Soviet territory and back into Central and Western Europe, where the US had been creating second fronts (Italy, France) to occupy Axis forces.

[Santti]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Compare the casualties and army strengths of Finland and Soviets.

The aftermath of that war quite likely played a key role in Nazi Germany deciding to attack the Soviets, as is noted in the Wiki. It was 15 months after the war ended, that Nazi Germany attacked Soviets.

"The Winter War was a political success for the Germans. Both the Red Army and the League of Nations were humiliated, and the Anglo-French Supreme War Council had been revealed to be chaotic and powerless. The German policy of neutrality was not popular in the homeland, and relations with Italy had suffered badly. After the Peace of Moscow, Germany did not hesitate to move to improve ties with Finland, and within two weeks Finno-German relations were at the top of the agenda.[202] Perhaps more importantly, the very poor performance of the Red Army encouraged Hitler to think that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful.[203]"

I wonder, if Winter War never happened, and Soviets never made any reforms to their army due to the humiliation they suffered, would the war with Nazi Germany gone differently?

[Ettan]

Some have probably seen it befoure, but this really illustrates how much bigger the eastern front really was.

[Deleted]

Stalins idea of mine clearing was marching soldiers in a line with interlocked arms across the mine field singing patriotic songs. Men were completely disposable for the red army.

They weren't effective Stalin just sent wave after wave of his own men in to enemy fire until they pretty much ran out of ammunition.

[Gaaz]

Stalins idea of mine clearing was marching soldiers in a line with interlocked arms across the mine field singing patriotic songs. Men were completely disposable for the red army.

They weren't effective Stalin just sent wave after wave of his own men in to enemy fire until they pretty much ran out of ammunition.

Another excellent example of a myth that still persists in minds of those who believe more in the Hollywood imagery, than actual history.

Myths such as this, once they take hold, develop a sort of self-sustaining momentum that distorts reality to fit the theory and thus provide further reinforcement. A good example of this is the oft-recounted conversation between Zhukov and Ike. Ike is reported to have been appalled at Zhukov’s callous disregard for human life as shown by his statement that the Red Army cleared minefields by driving troops through them. This supposed statement has grown in the retelling to the point that many sources declare as a statement of fact that the standard Soviet doctrine on breaching mine barriers was to drive a rifle regiment into it and use up the regiment.

This is very nearly the opposite of Zhukov’s position. What Zhukov actually said was that his practice was to attack through mine fields as though they weren’t there because this resulted in fewer casualties than any other option. He observed that the Germans tended to place minefields in such a way as to protect areas that were not swept by fire. Thus, if the Soviets found a gap through the minefield, it was sure to be covered by German machine-guns and mortars. Attempting to move through such a gap would inflict more casualties from fire than would have occurred from the minefield. By the same token, if the Russians stopped and attempted to clear a gap through the minefield, it gave the Germans time to bring up reserves and call down artillery fire. Again, more casualties would be inflicted upon the Russians than from the mines alone.

If the minefield could be quickly crossed and the covering German forces driven off, then the task of making gaps in the minefield was made far easier, since German fire would no longer be falling on the troops so employed. Though this tactic meant taking some losses from the mines at first, it also meant taking fewer losses overall.

Thus. when Zhukov preferred to launch an immediate attack directly through the minefields, it was because that method was the most economical in terms of loss of life. Nevertheless. in the midst of the Cold War, this incident was repeated as proof of the Russians’ insensitivity to casualties, which was further proof of the Russians’ “inexhaustible” manpower reserves and limitless numbers.

(As an historical aside, Patton’s own standing orders for the 3rd Army instructed troops encountering mine fields to attack through them without pausing for the same reasons.)

- Frank Chadwick

Basically, both Russians AND Americans were doing the same thing for the same reason - to minimize casualties. However, Russian actions are blown out of proportions and vilified, while General Patton's same orders are swept under a rug.

[CptEgo]

The Russian army was just as completely useless as expected, the Russian winter was greatly underestimated. And the help they got from the U.S.

[sarahtasher]

The Russian army was just as completely useless as expected, the Russian winter and infastructure was greatly underestimated. And the help they got from the U.S.

Again, if you attack Russia without coats, you are either an imbecile or overconfident, and likely both

''General Winter'' is a lame excuse concocted after the fact by people beaten by the Russians : the Grande Armée was already as disorganized mob when the first snow flakes fell and the temperatures were not drastically worse than the ones of a French winter until Napoléon had reached Smolensk.

[CptEgo]

Again, if you attack Russia without coats, you are either an imbecile or overconfident, and likely both

''General Winter'' is a lame excuse concocted after the fact by people beaten by the Russians : the Grande Armée was already as disorganized mob when the first snow flakes fell and the temperatures were not drastically worse than the ones of a French winter until Napoléon had reached Smolensk.

Well I'm pretty sure the biggest cause of death for a German solder on the Eastern front was the cold. Not combat.

[sarahtasher]

Well I'm pretty sure the biggest cause of death for a German solder on the Eastern front was the cold. Not combat.

No, absolutely not. The numero uno cause of death for Fascists during the entire war was ''the Red Army''

[Jastall]

They did suck at warfare though. The numbers tell the story here. They won at a staggeringly high cost. I'm sure that if wasn't for the fact the Germans had little in the way of steel and oil then they would have actually defeated the Soviets.

Without the Western allies the Soviets probably would have lost. The western allies from 1942 on tied up a pretty significant portion of the Wehrmecht. I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't do a majority of the fighting, I'm saying that people say the Soviets won and the Western Allies did nothing to help, and that is wrong.

Who cares about numbers? If you have a quantitative advantage you'd be foolish not to use it. On top of that, first, the Germans did not count casualties as precisely as the Soviets, and if memory serves did not include foreign auxiliaries such as Italians and Romanians in the numbers either so their own numbers are very probably far higher than reported. Second, the Red Army still managed to accomplish strategically advanced operations. If they just threw bodies at the problem until there was no problem Warhammer 40k style, they wouldn't have won complex, large-scale operations such as Kursk and Bagration (in the former case it was actually the Germans who threw bodies at the problem).

Also the Allies tied up jack shit before D-day, and even afterwards more than 80% of the Whermacht was still on the Eastern Front. Did the Allies help a lot, most definitely, through lend-lease, bombardments, and later on tying up parts of the Germans and its auxiliary forces. Would the Soviets still have won without them? A question for the ages, yeah. Victory would have been far slower, but since Germany was not built to wage a long war of attrition the result would probably have been the same, just with even more deaths on both sides. Still, it's kind of irrelevant. The Soviets had aid from the Allies, the Nazis had aid from their vassal states and collaborators. Nobody waged the war all alone.

[willtron]

Because the industrial output versus the number of troops wasn't equal in WW1 and WW2.

[owbu]

Are you asking why the western powers narrative, that emerged during the cold war, wasnt very interested in painting the russian army as awesome?
Or do russians also think that their army was incompetent?