Kameraden
TIKhistory
comments
Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Cutting off Army Group North in the Courland Pocket 1944 WW2 History Documentary BATTLESTORM Part 6" video.
6
@Nelson-gs9yv I would emphasis that this has more to do with the German Army not being as "Mythologically" godly as people claim while the Red Army became competent. For example, most of those 'glorious' stats/figures people often throw around came from 1941/42 in which most of the offensive fighting was done by the very best German units, (you know those 10-14 to 1 figures) they also would suffer the brunt of casualties, and loses in return. These were also irreplaceable loses, as it takes years to train crack divisions.
That being said, the quality of German infantry divisions, and reserve divisions wouldn't be up for the challenge to fill those loses. Most of which were conscripted in a hurry prior to the start of the war, to fill in the ranks needed for these "Grand" Campaigns. The causalties between the two leveled out considerably year after year, but always remained in favor of the German Army, save for as you pointed out some local victories for the Red Army, but the same goes for the Germans. But even in the later war period, the Red Army still suffered double the casualties between 44/45 cross the entire theatre, when compared to other theatres fought by other parties, that isn't something to gloat, or praise. Definitely when you take the quality of the vast majority of German divisions the Red Army were facing at this time.
The Allies had a hard time for example, but that was because most of the divisions they faced in the west were well equipped (for 1944 standards) and experienced, hoping to stop the Allies cold with some of the better divisions available at the time. Despite this, the Allies still came out on top with loses in casualties, when the Red Army didn't in the same time period, while not holding the same major numerical advantages either.
Again, I'm not roasting the Red Army intentionally. From what I've read, it's been just as over glorified as the Wehrmacht. If an equal strengthed crack Red Army division faced a German one in the field in 1944, I'd still place my money on the German one. I'd place my money on an American one above either. That being said, to me I consider the British though to be the most over glorified and hyped Army from WWII, despite performing poorly in nearly every campaign, even the ones they won.
5
@RussianThunderrr The Russian Divisions were depleted, that is without question. However, this didn't stop the Red Army from conducting mass forced conscription in liberated/occupied territories as the Germans fell back. This is why despite, the Red Army suffering horrific loses between 1941/42 even in 1944/45 they seemed to have limitless men. Most of these conscripts were giving little to no training, just equipment and uniforms, they were also often squandered in mass to weaken German positions so the more experienced Red Army divisions could mop up, and exploit any successes created by these conscripted liberatees. General Zhukov himself referred to these conscripts as "effectives" and "bayonets." As i said, one of TIK's videos of this particular series mentions this directly, I can not pinpoint it specifically though, I would have to go back and review each one first. This is also why it's a mistake to call the Red Army "Russian." By 1944 most of it's ranks were not Russian. But the same could also be said about the German Army. I remember reading somewhere up to 1/3rd of the soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht throughout the entire war, (which includes the SS/Navy/Luftwaffe) were not Germans. Similar to the Soviets some of these foreign divisons/regimates were also squandered. There is likely a reason you see so many foreign "Legionary" divisions in Estonia Dutch/Belgium/Nordic, and Baltic SS were all present, vs when compared to the German divisions south of Estonia, ie they were considered the most expendable, though saying they were so far north because they were "expendable" in the eyes of the Army, is my personal opinion.
About the Allies situation in the West. Well it was peachy. Allied soldiers had near limitless supplies and equipment, food, and outside of German bullets/artillery didn't even have to worry about being attacked from the air. US and British armies also had a vast superiority in support troops, and rear line units, including field hospitals of the likes not seen anywhere else. Most allied casualties would survive their injuries. Allies performed very well from 1944 and on. Comparing their situation to the Red Army is like comparing a Peasant to noblemen. It's also why I would rate any of the allied armies considerably higher than the Red Army, and still higher than the German Army. At least what existed in 1944/45. If we are talking about the Allies in 1940/41, well....
On the topic of the German Army in the west. The Germans units they faced were better equipped than their Eastern Front counter parts. Mostly because most Divisions redeployed to France prior to D-Day were there recovering, training, and being equipped, ie reequipped. They were rotated in and out of France in this fashion. It was done so specifically to provide a "defense" when an invasion would come, while serving a dual purpose of being a location divisions could train, recover, and reequip. A lot of divisions throughout the war including the infamous Totenkampf 3rd SS Panzer were first equipped for battle in this fashion in France before being deployed East. Strength wise this meant that many of the Divisions in France, were often in better condition than their Eastern Front counter parts. Even some of the newest Divisions like the 12th SS Division were being training in the region. Of course all German divisions at this time suffered short comings. Even the 12th SS did not have all the armor and vehicles required to be a 'full' division, but no Germany division had this luxury anywhere, and was short of officers as well, a short coming often not mentioned, Germany had more divisions than it had officers to lead them.
Here is a Cookie for thought. TIK made it quite clear how often Hitler was used as a scapegoat. Do you think Stalin has been used a lot as a Scapegoat for the USSR's failures in the war? I know for a Fact Rommel is used as an excuse for the British failures in North Africa in the same fashion. Rommel is propped up as the greatest general ever by British Historians, a Dragon to be slain, and an excuse for how badly they were beat in Africa early on, despite the inferiority of the Afrika Korps. I sometimes wonder if Russian historians have done the same with Stalin.
4