Do Russian Tanks Suck?

[Oldman1]

Their are some serious problems with Russian Tanks even Russians are not happy with T-90 so far it is also giving some problems to them

Russia only have a few hundred of them. While still maintaining thousands of older tanks.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Russia only have a few hundred of them. While still maintaining thousands of older tanks.

That's because of post-soviet collapse fallout and more importantly because russian defense ministry views it as a stopgap till the armata design which will be new universal tank for their forces.Thus limited production run only.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Perhaps we have a miscommunication here.when i say human wave attacks i mean literally that.Waves of soldiers charging towards the enemy in a line in ww1 fashion.These mobile shock troops however didn't follow such tactics,they followed fire and manuever taking cover and moving under suppresive fire and specialized for close combat in buildings being armed with mostly smgs.That i don't call human wave tactics.
Also one point i missed was the havoc caused by soviet artillery from the other bank and its role in blunting major german infantry attacks.

Human Wave attack is a very board term, it can mean literally anything.

The problem as we can see is, there are no grand strategy to defend the city by mean of feeding troop where they needed.

Instead the Russian strategy used in Stalingrad is "defense at stance" which basically mean the defense is where the troop stand. Simply attacking and defending using fire and move tactics does not qualified the defense as a whole are planed "Fire and Move" Tactics are the way small unit move, that's the same as bounce, peel, leapfrog. Basically, fire and move is the same as pinning down one enemy.

However, if a side uses fire and move together with intersecting fire field, kill zone, mutual supported position and use of terrain, then that's combine force tactics.

by the way, Human wave attack is an offensive strategy, not defending tactics.

In the West, often like to say that the USSR "flunked Germans with corpses." That's not true. Although the Soviet Union lost more soldiers than his enemies, the ratio of losses Russian to fascists is 1:1,1-1,3. It's calculating all fascists - Hungarian, Romanian and others. In Stalingrad won elite troops - scouts and snipers. And the Germans also staged "psychic attack" - that is, going in all growth to attack, shooting from the hip.
In addition, in 1942 on the territory controlled by the Soviet government remained only 70 million inhabitants. At the same time in the territories occupied by the Germans and their allies - 220 million( in Europe). USSR could not "flunked Germans with corpses." Physically could not.

I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

if you are simply saying since Germany only 200 millions citizens and Russia only have 70 millions then Russia have no physical way to flunk the German with number.

Well, that's the first time I hear.

First of all, not all resident in German and axis state are combatant. And second, Germany does not just fight with Russia, Germany have a war to the world and they are facing enemy from 3 sides. Just because they have 220 resident under their control, that did not means they are using 220 millions German and its axis resident to attack Russia. How many troop were there in Army Group South and how much troop to the 16 defending Soviet Armies is the only things that count.

So, with all due respect, you are wrong.

 

[vostok]

I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

if you are simply saying since Germany only 200 millions citizens and Russia only have 70 millions then Russia have no physical way to flunk the German with number.

Well, that's the first time I hear.

First of all, not all resident in German and axis state are combatant. And second, Germany does not just fight with Russia, Germany have a war to the world and they are facing enemy from 3 sides. Just because they have 220 resident under their control, that did not means they are using 220 millions German and its axis resident to attack Russia. How many troop were there in Army Group South and how much troop to the 16 defending Soviet Armies is the only things that count.

So, with all due respect, you are wrong.

It was the Soviet Union accounting for 75% loss of the Germans in the war.
Here is a map of Europe in 1942. I say that behind the front line in 1942, Germany had 220 million people. And the Soviet Union - 70 million.

Do not confuse with neutral status of Sweden and Spain - they carried on a pretty lively trade with the Reich.
Of those 70 million that remained in the Soviet Union - also were not all combatants. And nonetheless. In addition, dozens of Soviet divisions were forced to stand in the Caucasus, near Iran and in the Far East near the border with the Japanese occupied territory Manchukuo.
USSR also did not fight only against Germans - with the Italians, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians and others. All of Europe or fighting for the Reich, or worked for the Reich.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

There is one problem with vostok's argument.The occupied countries's populations didn't serve as german soldiers in any quantity and are militarily irrelevant.They could at best be sued as forced labour and nothing more.Only a few fanatics were inducted into the ss foreign legions.Germany has to face USSR with manpower of here own ethnic germans mostly and that of here allied satellites.
On the other hand if we observe the losses,bulk of russian losses were in 1941 and then 1942.The last 3 yrs of the war soviets have good kill/loss ratio with germans.So it can't be said they used human wave tactics .They did at the beginning but adapted.Will try to elaborate on some of these tactics later.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Human Wave attack is a very board term, it can mean literally anything.

The problem as we can see is, there are no grand strategy to defend the city by mean of feeding troop where they needed.

Instead the Russian strategy used in Stalingrad is "defense at stance" which basically mean the defense is where the troop stand. Simply attacking and defending using fire and move tactics does not qualified the defense as a whole are planed "Fire and Move" Tactics are the way small unit move, that's the same as bounce, peel, leapfrog. Basically, fire and move is the same as pinning down one enemy.

However, if a side uses fire and move together with intersecting fire field, kill zone, mutual supported position and use of terrain, then that's combine force tactics.

by the way, Human wave attack is an offensive strategy, not defending tactics.

The stalingrad directive from stalin was 'not one step back'.There was no space for soviets to trade they were squeezed into the last line of the city,behind them the volga-fighting often took place a few hundred metres from chuikov's headquarters.,they were ordered to and had to defend every inch.So that justifies their 'defend and stand' stance.
In the brutal chaotic street and urban fighting,planning even for the organized germans it seems became much less relevant.Because the germans did use the tactics u described.They would divide the city into sectors,slowly isolate each sector and liquidate the strongpoints with overwhelming firepower while keeping the other sectors quiet and preventing reinforcements.

These mobile shock troops were used as offensive troops,not just defensive.The normal infantry garrisoned buildings and were defensive.But these troops moved from sector to sector counter attacking and trying to take lost buildings and reinforcing threatened ones.Meanwhile snipers covered the no-man's land.Artillery attacks from the other bank were co-ordinated to pound any major german infantry attacks.These i don't think can be described as simple rigid defense or mindless human wave tactics.

 

[vostok]

There is one problem with vostok's argument.The occupied countries's populations didn't serve as german soldiers in any quantity and are militarily irrelevant.They could at best be sued as forced labour and nothing more.Only a few fanatics were inducted into the ss foreign legions.Germany has to face USSR with manpower of here own ethnic germans mostly and that of here allied satellites.
On the other hand if we observe the losses,bulk of russian losses were in 1941 and then 1942.The last 3 yrs of the war soviets have good kill/loss ratio with germans.So it can't be said they used human wave tactics .They did at the beginning but adapted.Will try to elaborate on some of these tactics later.

At war labor force is not less important than the military. The more workers from other countries - the more Germans can put soldiers. And Europeans have worked diligently on Reich - sabotage cases were very few. Partizan's war almost was not (exept Soviet lands and some Balcans). But the Soviet Union had a huge, just incredible difficulties with labor force - worked around the clock in three shifts, even children and pensioners. Workers did not have enough food because in the first place products were sent to the front.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

At war labor force is not less important than the military. The more workers from other countries - the more Germans can put soldiers. And Europeans have worked diligently on Reich - sabotage cases were very few. Partizan's war almost was not (exept Soviet lands and some Balcans). But the Soviet Union had a huge, just incredible difficulties with labor force - worked around the clock in three shifts, even children and pensioners. Workers did not have enough food because in the first place products were sent to the front.

You have a valid point.Forced labour does free up lots of able bodied men.On the other hand germans found oput forced labour was unskilled,crude and inefficeint,thats why towards the end they tried to employ women more than forced labour.But late,soviet women had played a gigantic role in the war effort from the early days itself.Especially in war production,manning AAA units,medical staff and some snipers,pilots and tank drivers.

One soviet advanatge in the 40s was that most of its manpower was young and able to serve.On the other hand however,iyt lost a chunk of its manpower producing areas due to early occupation.

 

[vostok]

You have a valid point.Forced labour does free up lots of able bodied men.On the other hand germans found oput forced labour was unskilled,crude and inefficeint,thats why towards the end they tried to employ women more than forced labour.But late,soviet women had played a gigantic role in the war effort from the early days itself.Especially in war production,manning AAA units,medical staff and some snipers,pilots and tank drivers.

One soviet advanatge in the 40s was that most of its manpower was young and able to serve.On the other hand however,iyt lost a chunk of its manpower producing areas due to early occupation.

I talked about the labor force (number of workers), and not the workers who were forced to work.
Germans rarely used forced prisoners for important jobs. They did not have this need - plants of Czechia, Holland, France and other countries voluntarily worked for the Nazis. And worked well, without sabotage. Czech Skoda was one of the best military factories of Reich and worked till 8th or 9th of May 1945 (i do not remember). And those who were forced was used in the rough and low-skilled jobs.

 

[500]

It was the Soviet Union accounting for 75% loss of the Germans in the war.
Here is a map of Europe in 1942. I say that behind the front line in 1942, Germany had 220 million people. And the Soviet Union - 70 million.

You are confusing. 70 million are loses not what remained. USSR had 195 mln so after capturing 70 mln 125 mln remained. However, many of those 70 mln were mobilized before the war, after the war started and then again when territories were liberated so u should not exclude them.

Germany with Austria and Sudetes had 80 mln. I.e. Soviets had 2,43 times more. Now considering the fact that 25% were killed on Western front we get 3.25 times advantage in mobilization.

The overall Soviet loses were about 27 million. Lets say that half were military: then we get 13 million.

Germans lost 5.3 million including 4 million in East front. In addition some 650 K German allies (Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Finns) were killed on east front. 13 million vs 4.65 = the ratio is 2.8

 

[vostok]

You are confusing. 70 million are loses not what remained. USSR had 195 mln so after capturing 70 mln 125 mln remained. However, many of those 70 mln were mobilized before the war, after the war started and then again when territories were liberated so u should not exclude them.

Germany with Austria and Sudetes had 80 mln. I.e. Soviets had 2,43 times more. Now considering the fact that 25% were killed on Western front we get 3.25 times advantage in mobilization.

The overall Soviet loses were about 27 million. Lets say that half were military: then we get 13 million.

Germans lost 5.3 million including 4 million in East front. In addition some 650 K German allies (Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Finns) were killed on east front. 13 million vs 4.65 = the ratio is 2.8

Yes. You're right, really - 70 million left in the occupied territory, and not controlled by the USSR. 10 million were evacuated. However, I am confused and German figures. The territory controlled by Reich in 1941 lived 290 million. Plus 65-70 million in occupied Soviet territories. So - 350 millions. And in USSR remained 125 millions.
Soviet military casualties - 10 million. German military losses (including Germans who were citizens of other countries before 1935) - 6,923,700.
If we add Hungarians, Romanians and others - the ratio is 1:1.1

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

@500
You said T-72 had an edge over M-60. Jordanian M-60 was upgraded, and the upgrade included it's engine, FCS and a 120 mm gun which increased it's lethality and mobility. But, the protection wasn't adopted obviously and yet stayed the same. What's your evaluation of this tank after this upgrade without the reactive armor protection? And can it survive against modern tanks?

 

[500]

@500
You said T-72 had an edge over M-60. Jordanian M-60 was upgraded, and the upgrade included it's engine, FCS and a 120 mm gun which increased it's lethality and mobility. But, the protection wasn't adopted obviously and yet stayed the same. What's your evaluation of this tank after this upgrade without the reactive armor protection? And can it survive against modern tanks?

Its firepower is equal to modern tanks, but it has much weaker armor. It can used in ambushes as tank destroyer, but on modern battlefield its survivability will be very low. Dont like this modernization to be honest. I think armor should be upgraded first.

 

[Elucid]

Just my two cents on Stalingrad.
Soviets were not using human wave attacks there rather they were well dug in. Principle of fortification was at work. Soviets kept pumping men into those dug outs. No matter how many got killed refreshments kept coming across the Volga. Germans were not strong enough to knock off soviets from their last strongholds and get those last few miles of Stalingrad.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Just my two cents on Stalingrad.
Soviets were not using human wave attacks there rather they were well dug in. Principle of fortification was at work. Soviets kept pumping men into those dug outs. No matter how many got killed refreshments kept coming across the Volga. Germans were not strong enough to knock off soviets from their last strongholds and get those last few miles of Stalingrad.

What you are describing is the exact the work of human tactics....

Here is the post my hubby wrote about Unit Tactics and Human Wave attacks.

Small Unit Tactics (SUT)

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Well, my wife ask me to come out of retirement, just once to explain the different between Small Unit Tactics and Human Wave attacks.

If you have been following the post Do Russian Tanks Suck?
There is a discussion between Small Unit Tactics and Human Wave Tactics going on the Battle of Stalingrad. My wife want me to come out and explained the two.

What is Small Unit Tactics??
In the US Army Infantry Doctrine, small unit tactics is the building block of the US Army Combined Arms tactics. Where a bigger Army unit would split into smaller unit and use them to combine inter-service unit (Such as Infantry + Armor) or (Armor + Assault Chopper) to maximize the battle effectiveness.

To under stand SUT, you must understand the formation of a military unit. (Photo courtesy from the US Army Doctrine Manual)

The left(Your) is a standard Calvary Platoon of 4 Bradley and the Right(Your) is a standard Infantry Platoon minus the command element.

For an infantry platoon, it is split into 4 element, 1st Squad, 2nd Squad, 3rd Squad and Command Post. Where each squad are also split into 2 fire teams. Now, the reason I chose this image out of possibly 20 is because it demonstrate well how you can see an inter-support section is formed, 1 BFV (Bradley Fighting Vehicle) section supporting 3 fire teams.

Now, let's look at the infantry platoon commander point of view. If you are focus with a single fire team, you would have 8 teams in a platoon, it would give you a maximum movement (Technically you would cover more ground to split it 8 ways) but it also mean you stretch out your support. You will get a maximum support when you don't split your team, but then your coverage will be significantly lower, as you move as one cohesion unit.

So the balance is to split into 3 fire teams and using this fire teams you can go up with 2 fire team each with 2 BFV section supporting while 1 squad left in reserve, or you can split your asset three way and roam around with your Cavalry in a 3-2 split (Cavalryman called it free-balling) Basically is a game of cups, you try to cover 3 cups with 2 lid as quickly as possible.

Command structure
So, what happened if you split your platoon in 3? You got 3 different and separate command. Which 3 squad operate independently to each other, while the overall commander can deploy them as will according to the AO (Which will explain later) situation, you also get a dynamic response from the 3 teams if you separate them.

They can either occupied 3 different defensive position to lay out an inter-related and mutually supported defense area, or you can try and you can, of course, consolidate the area and use all 3 teams in one location.

But how does it works?

The above image outline platoon level tactics, a "Stepwise-Refinement" method was used to determined the action you, as a platoon leader, would take during contacts. Basically is a spill or fill situation.

When your platoon initiate contact with the enemy, you, as a platoon leader need to judge the situation, as you are split into 3, unless you have encountered a superior enemy force (like a battalion level) or you fail to deploy your squad according to the terrain, which is another topic in advance unit tactics which I will not cover here. In this case, let's say you match an evenly matched enemy.

You would always have 1 unit (squad) take fire from the incoming contact. the split, will then allow you to judge, you have the ability to access the situation and move your unit accordingly (like the way it does in figure 4.2)

However, if you move as a single cohesion unit, you will then be striped away of that opportunity and would only face two option, either commit all your asset and try to hold out or call for relief attack, or beat back where you came from.

Warfighting function

(Sorry for the cut out as I don't know why the army site do not allow a direct hyperlink of this figure)

Warfighting function is the inherent of small unit tactics, it give a leader information to process a order and executing the order with a defined level of requirement. Using the example of Figure 4.2. we can see that the platoon leader make the decision according to warfighting functions.

Step 1. The platoon react to contacts.
Step 2. The platoon identified and located the enemy (Intelligence)
Step 3. The platoon determine can the squad in contact suppress the enemy?
Decision 1 : If it can, can the squad maneuver? (Movement and Maneuver)
Decision 2 : If it cannot, send another squad to support the first squad (Fire support), then go back to decision 1
Decision 1.1 : If the squad can maneuver, either use 1 squad to lay supporting fire and use 2 squad assault.
or, if you had send two squad to support the first contact (a No in original decision 1) then uses 1 squad to assault while 2 squad lay down base of fire (Command and Control)
Decision 2.1 : If the squad cannot maneuver, then reports and wait for reinforcement (Sustainment)
Step 4 : Platoon succeed in assaulting the position, consolidate for defense (Protection)

Area of Operation

Area of Operation dictate the tactics commander used in all level. However, for a success defensive and offensive operation, Area of operation is also important for the overall picture, as your AO would affect the outcome of others or the others AO outcome will affect yours. (well, think about it, if you lost the offensive or cannot hold the line, the enemy will spill over to other AO). Hence when you organize your tactics, you need to consider your AO as a separate pieces of area, but also one giant area as a whole.

What SUT do to your AO is, in defensive battle, you can pick any advantage spots/ vantages point and defend them accordingly. Which will lay out an interlocking and mutually supported defense, which give a "force multiplying" factors. You can do so with single cohesion tactics too, but the different between SUT and SCT is that when using SUT, you can also dynamically manage your AO, as you don't control just one large sector, instead, 3 of your squad leader command 3 different sector, and they can exploit any enemy error and retreat and regroup as the seems fits. All at an instance.

In offensive battle, this is where SUT and SCT part ways. Using SUT, you can organize your attack organically, we commander like to use the word "Organic" because they give you an edge of knowing more of your battlefield with more info/intel flow in, if you failed in one part of the line, you simply regroup and probe another part while the other 2 parts goes on, where as for SCT, you are probing the line in just one spot, and every decision you made is base around that single cohesive unit. you restart every time you hit slack.

That's the main different between Small Unit Tactics and Single unit Tactics

So, what is the different between small unit tactics and human wave tactics??

The two is a 2 different concept in 2 different level, while small unit tactics is the keystone of combined arms, small unit tactics is also heavily utilized in human wave tactics too. A large unit (i.e. Regiments and Divisions) can break into small unit and work their way to the assembly point for a Human Wave assault, equally they can march loud and noisy as a whole to the assembly area. In 21 century warfare, large unit usually cannot march in a single cohesion unit unless air and ground supremacy have been developed or time and again, air interdiction is a very good way to break up a large unit, hence, if you don't have air superiority and you don't want to march in small unit, your enemy will do it for you.

Human wave tactics involved a large amount of small unit tactics, in Vietnam war, the Vietcong expertly uses small unit tactics to infiltrate larger US?ARVN defense and launch strike time and again, the infamous Ho Chi Ming trail is the epicenter of the VC/NVA small unit tactics junctions. The mastery of Small Unit Tactics also contribute to numerous siege to US Firebases in and around South Vietnam. Tunneling, for example, is an example of mastery of SUT with VC/NVA AO we talked about some paragraph ago.

The level between SUT and Human Wave is different. Human wave attack should be equal and compare to Combine arms tactics. When on one side, you get a zero support frontal charge while the other one uses strategic and tactical depth to engage one's enemy.

Hence, what make of Battle of Stalingrad??

Stalingrad is a sort of Human Wave attack. When you apply the warfighting function to Battle of Stalingrad, you would see most of the mini-battle are only fulfilling the protection and movement requirement. When you talk about the goal of defending Stalingrad, they are absents. Partly because of poor commanding and poor intelligence and partly because of the inability to raise a proper defense.

Indeed SUT exist in Stalingrad, the key and goal of such tactics is lacking. The point for SUT is to organize your attack/defense dynamically, or as we commander used to said "Organic", rather what the Russia doing is to feed the German in piecemeal albeit with Small unit tactics.

Copyright US Military Achieve (Figure), @jhungary (Passage)
Well, this is a one off lesson, I am out of here again, I will not reply to any question. Thanks for your time

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

The way Russia fed those troop under central command to keep occupying the defensive dug out is itself a human tactics.

It was the Soviet Union accounting for 75% loss of the Germans in the war.
Here is a map of Europe in 1942. I say that behind the front line in 1942, Germany had 220 million people. And the Soviet Union - 70 million.

Do not confuse with neutral status of Sweden and Spain - they carried on a pretty lively trade with the Reich.
Of those 70 million that remained in the Soviet Union - also were not all combatants. And nonetheless. In addition, dozens of Soviet divisions were forced to stand in the Caucasus, near Iran and in the Far East near the border with the Japanese occupied territory Manchukuo.
USSR also did not fight only against Germans - with the Italians, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians and others. All of Europe or fighting for the Reich, or worked for the Reich.

I want to ask you something.

You do know you cannot turn an immediately capture citizens into German soldier overnight, right?

Most German soldier are conscripted and trained and formed in Germany, Not in occupied France, not in Occupied Denmark, not in Occupied Norway or any other Occupied territories. In a war and campaign like this, you cannot say "Okay, we are going to invade Russia tomorrow, let's conscript some soldier from the Occupied Country today"

What only counted is what you can support with, that's the first principle in warfare, and back then Germany is an away force attacking, that means they need to support their troop away from home. So their "Available Force", the only one that counted, but not the 220 millions occupied soldier or whatever you say, is significantly smaller than what the Russian can afford to muster.

So, yes, Russian uses Human Tactics to feed he germans attacks, and you are frankly just wrong. And I found your logic "Because they have a bigger country than us at that time they will almost always come with a bigger force" funny.