Comments by "Quizmaster China" (@QuizmasterLaw) on "How BIG were Soviet Armies and Divisions in 1942? And what impact did this have?" video.

I am a polyglot and Russia expert. I speak English Russian and German fluently. You are best to learn German first. Only learn Russian after learning German. MHV can probably get you a research visit to the university of the Bundeswehr, and DAAD does have German language summer coures which I recommend because living in the country does so much to improve your language learning. Aspects of German which are different to English are similar to Russian yet easier in German, making it an excellent "bridge" language. E.g. German has 4 cases Russian 6 case exists only vestigially in English. There are some words which are found as cognates between German and Russian, yet not to English (mohren/morkov for example, which means carrot). Yes, you must learn Russian, but only after learning German. Don't try to learn both at once that will only confuse you. You will have little difficulty finding accurate German language materials on the topic of your interest. They will not contradict or add much to the English language material. However, knowing German DOES make learning Russian much easier! Welcome to the new cold war, fml.
15
Soviet command and control was always inferior to the Germans, even into late 1944. German tactics were superior into 1945. Which shows how much more important strategy is as compared to tactics, because the Soviet strategy was superior, from at least Uranus/Stalingrad forward, possibly even prior to the war. It is entirely possible Stalin meant to use the Russo Finnish war to blood purge and test the Soviet army after the Tukachevsky purges and to convince the nazis their racial theories were correct, that the USSR was inferior and doomed to lose any war. Sandbagging.
2
This is another case of Russian/Soviet disinformation, naming formations as larger (or smaller) than they were to disrupt enemy intelligence. On paper Soviet tank corps were tank corps. But in practice some were reduced to divisional or regimental strength. Meanwhile, army/army group/front were anything, literally. Some of them were "ghost" units, only existing in SIGINT and ELINT. Others were seriously understrength as compared to western equivalents. Yet others were severely overstrength in comparison. No Western commentator seems to have publicly connected the strange Soviet/Russian nomenclature with the intelligence war, which is odd, since maskirovka and tainost are integral to Soviet/Russian military doctrine, and disinformation (deza) was and is integral to USSR/Russian foreign relations. I don't think USSR commanders in the field were at all uncertain as to the actual numbers, equipment, and training of their forces. Likewise, some units were very well trained, and others completely untrained, though Soviet training consistently improved throughout the war. German nomenclature in contrast was consistent and exact, with the exception of the Herman Goerring Parachute Tank Division (I shit you not it actually existed, did have plenty of tanks and wound up corps sized). The Fuehrers Begleit Brigade likewise had a fluctuating table of organization and equipment. Germans consistently underestimated the importance of espionage/intelligence during the war (unlike in the run-up to the war!)
1
Yes, that is true, but this was only due to being unable to replace casualties and not part of an intentional disinformation tactic. Understrength front line combat units are to be expected in any active war zone. But the case of Soviet misinformation regarding unit sizes/training/equipment was not merely linguistic nor due to the regular rigors of war. It was also about masking actual strength (maskirovka).
1
Yes. While USSR counterintelligence in the run up to the war was ham handed during the war it was excellent. More or less the Nazis wished to provoke a coup d'etat in pre-war Russia, which never happened (Stalin murdered or jailed them all, and then some). However, Nazi's efforts at a coup DID cripple the red army (see: purges). TIK really underestimates that and, like most all western analysts ignores the roles of Soviet maskirovka, tainost, and dezinformatsiya, as well as Soviet artillery DIVISIONS. Russian artillery is the best in the world, albeit quite brutal. (See: Aleppo...) During the war the Nazis consistently underestimated the necessity and utility of battlefield intelligence and counterintelligence.
1
It's possible to get roughly accurate To&E for Soviet units but they are all Russian langauge and anything before 1990 or after 2000 should be taken sceptically. Even stuff between 1990 and 2000 needs to be sifted through to sort out the facts from the fakes. Ah, Russia!
1
I expect we could get accurate information regarding Polish, Baltic, and Hungarian units but I would expect nothing accurate about anything from Romania after 1942, Bulgari, or anywhere in ex Yugoslavia. Ukraine will prove to be a very interesting case.
1