Leningrad

Birkin wrote:

T-34 was not as good tank than British Firefly, in the term of armor penetration.

" I doubt the ability of five Tigers being able to destroy eighty T-34s..it's just not realistic. In no combat scenario would this be possible - the Tiger tanks had repeated chances to show what you have tried to prove throughout 1943, 1944 and 1945, and never did they do this "

Now that is yust not true. Even a single Tiger could be more effective against a whole mass of T-34s then you may think. If the Tigers would be in good position, it would have a good view of area, it would be quite possible to destroy 88 T-34s.

Ect: In July 1943, during the Summer Offensive " Operation Citadel ", a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger engaged an group of 50 T-34 tanks in Psyolknee. He destroyed 22 of the tanks while others retreated.

That was a sole tank that took out 22 T-34s, so I dont see why three Tigers couldnt take out 88.

Need more examples?

Operation Citadel would be the last chance any Tiger tank would be able to do that. Operation Citadel was more of a static battle, where confusion was ripe - massive amounts of armor going both ways. Therefore, statistics such as that could present themselves on both sides, and evidence can support massive tank kills on both sides - it's just not efficient enough to take a single German witnessing, and then never compare it to Soviet witnessing - I do agree that the Soviets underestimate, and sometimes overexxagerate, in their "directly post-bellum" accounts.

After Operation Citadel the battles which revolved in the East were more fluid, showing blitzkrieg tactics reversed on the Germans - massive plunges to the rear by massive Soviet tank formations, and encirclements and such.

-----

However, it is more important to note that the German generation tank to the T-35 was the Panther, not the Tiger. And the generation to the T-35/85 was just another variant of the Panther. Comparing a Tiger to a T-34 is like comparing an Abrams to a T-60 - the T-34 was just a medium tank, while the Tiger was a heavy tank.

I think what you're trying to prove is German superiority in tanks, and the fact that the Tiger I was better, just doesn't prove it. The Soviet IS-II could match the Tiger and the Tiger II on the field - with its 122mm gun, especially. By the end of 1943 the Soviet industry was able to put out massive amounts of high technology, and the Germans, in the end, just couldn't compete with either production, or the technology.

Also, every time a German tank came out, which was thought advance, the Soviets had already come out with a better one. The Pz. II was out preformed by the T-26 Light Tank in the Ebro during the Spanish Civil War. The Pz. III, and Pz. IVs were outpreformed by all variants of the T-34 and the heavy KV-Is and KV-IIs. The Tiger line was outpreformed by the Iosef Stalin lines. So, German superiority in armor was just non-existant. It was German superiority in strategy revolving around the use of this armor.

Grandfather Lenin wrote:

What really gets on my nerves about the way americans write their text books is that they leave out everything good about any other countries except themselves. THe only thing that peopel really learn about the USSR in my school comes from me when I stand up and tell people the truth of what happened, most of them think I'm lieing and just ignore me, but the one with an open mind actually learn the truth, and Leningrad was one of those truths that most will never hear about, and it was the worst seige of a city in history. During the actual war America promised to start D-day 3 years before they did, yes they did send supplies, but hey didn't have that many men in the pacific, so they could spare a few, they wanted to see the Soviet Union to take a few hits from hitler before they came to the rescue. Even when they did start putting people into Europe, to fight the Nazis it was when we had pushed them out of our borders and started marching into occupied territory, I personally don't belive in coinsidence, they did it because they wanted to snatch a little peice of victory right under our noses and watch our people die before they step in.

During 1941 and 1942 the United States was not at war with Germany. The United States entered the war with Germany on December 8, 1942. Therefore, the argument that the United States did not lend help to the Soviet Union is completely disqualified as propaganda. It is true that the Soviet logistical machine relied almost completely on American studabaker trucks, and it is true that a major part of the late 1941 and early 1942 armored forces were composed of early war American tanks. It is also true that had it not been for American supplies, INCLUDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOOD STUFF, coming up through Persian and Murmansk, theirs a fairly good chance that Moscow would have fallen by December. In fact, it is a commonly argued fact, most recently written by Pat McTaggart in an article he wrote for WWII History that said that had the Germans successfully cut the rail from Murmansk to the center of Russia, Moscow would have had quite the shock as the walls of the Red Army crumbled around the Third Rome.

Did you know that had it not been for the Allied landing in Sicily Operation Citadel would have continued? This might not have that big of an implication on you now. However, the battle wasn't won by the Soviet might - it was won by poor planning on Germany's part. Had von Manstein gotten his way and continued with the battle, no matter the casualties on the German side, the Kursk Pocket had a good chance of being bagged. Although, yes, the Soviets still had massive free manpower to flex, the closing of the Kursk Pocket would have ended in the capture or death of Koniev, as well as the capture or death of hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops; and believe it or not, the Soviets were at the end of their tether, no matter how many men they claimed to have. Their barrels of manpower had been scraped clean by July 1943. Had they suffered the same amounts of casualties they had suffered throughout 1941 and 1942 they would have serious problems for the remainder of the war.

The D-Day landings also tied up massive amounts of men in France and Western Germany. Hitler moved most of his men to the Western Front for his Ardennes Offensive planned for December 16th of 1944. Did you know that his Eastern front was almost swept clean? During the January investment of Germany Zhukov lost some one hundred thousand men to mere Volksstrum units in the Seelow Heights, and Koniev suffered equally attempting to cross the Spree River. Imagine those crossings and tarversings that the Germans kept the bulk of their panzer forces in the area! It would have been hell for the Soviets.

And I can back this up. In May of 1944, at Targul Frumos, (which I wrote an article for on these forums but was lost a while back...), Manteuffel was able to defeat a vastly superior force of Soviet manpower with his sole GrossDeustchland Division and remnants of a small panzer division. Koniev was severly defeated and the actual defeat of Romania was pushed back by over two months. Although small, and almost inconsequential, victories like these were repeated all over the front, and it would have surely been costly to the Red Army. So, the Allied Armies in France actually allowed the Red Army to sweep over Eastern Germany in a campaign that would be less costly, both in material and men.

So, in conclusion, the West wasn't as useless as you think.


Leningrad was the longest siege in human history. However, worst I doubt it. Although more people died in that siege than in any other siege, you can't compare the brutality to such sieges such as the ones that Chinggis Khan set up against his enemies. You can't compare it to the siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, that when the Christian army entered it slaughtered Muslim, Jew and Christian alike - accounts saying that the soldiers slaughtered with blood to their ankles. But that's a mere perspective - their will be those that will attribute it as you have done, and you really can't argue against it. So, I will end my own argument here.

The following table, not an inclusive one by any means, shows the extent of lend-lease aid the Western Allies provided to the Soviet Union from 01 October 1941 to 31 March 1946 (not a typo, aid went on well after WWII ended). CW - Commonwealth contribution; US - American contribution:

Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206
Automotive:
--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)
--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)
--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)
Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)
Boots - 15 million pairs (US)
Communications equipment:
--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)
--- Radios - 40.000 (US)
--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)
Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)
Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)
Leather - 49.000 tons (US)
Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)
Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)
Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)
Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755
Tractors - 8.701 (US)
Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

Nucleicacidman wrote:

Grandfather Lenin wrote:

What really gets on my nerves about the way americans write their text books is that they leave out everything good about any other countries except themselves. THe only thing that peopel really learn about the USSR in my school comes from me when I stand up and tell people the truth of what happened, most of them think I'm lieing and just ignore me, but the one with an open mind actually learn the truth, and Leningrad was one of those truths that most will never hear about, and it was the worst seige of a city in history. During the actual war America promised to start D-day 3 years before they did, yes they did send supplies, but hey didn't have that many men in the pacific, so they could spare a few, they wanted to see the Soviet Union to take a few hits from hitler before they came to the rescue. Even when they did start putting people into Europe, to fight the Nazis it was when we had pushed them out of our borders and started marching into occupied territory, I personally don't belive in coinsidence, they did it because they wanted to snatch a little peice of victory right under our noses and watch our people die before they step in.

During 1941 and 1942 the United States was not at war with Germany. The United States entered the war with Germany on December 8, 1942. Therefore, the argument that the United States did not lend help to the Soviet Union is completely disqualified as propaganda. It is true that the Soviet logistical machine relied almost completely on American studabaker trucks, and it is true that a major part of the late 1941 and early 1942 armored forces were composed of early war American tanks. It is also true that had it not been for American supplies, INCLUDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOOD STUFF, coming up through Persian and Murmansk, theirs a fairly good chance that Moscow would have fallen by December. In fact, it is a commonly argued fact, most recently written by Pat McTaggart in an article he wrote for WWII History that said that had the Germans successfully cut the rail from Murmansk to the centre of Russia, Moscow would have had quite the shock as the walls of the Red Army crumbled around the Third Rome.

Did you know that had it not been for the Allied landing in Sicily Operation Citadel would have continued? This might not have that big of an implication on you now. However, the battle wasn't won by the Soviet might - it was won by poor planning on Germany's part. Had von Manstein gotten his way and continued with the battle, no matter the casualties on the German side, the Kursk Pocket had a good chance of being bagged. Although, yes, the Soviets still had massive free manpower to flex, the closing of the Kursk Pocket would have ended in the capture or death of Koniev, as well as the capture or death of hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops; and believe it or not, the Soviets were at the end of their tether, no matter how many men they claimed to have. Their barrels of manpower had been scraped clean by July 1943. Had they suffered the same amounts of casualties they had suffered throughout 1941 and 1942 they would have serious problems for the remainder of the war.

The D-Day landings also tied up massive amounts of men in France and Western Germany. Hitler moved most of his men to the Western Front for his Ardennes Offensive planned for December 16th of 1944. Did you know that his Eastern front was almost swept clean? During the January investment of Germany Zhukov lost some one hundred thousand men to mere Volksstrum units in the Seelow Heights, and Koniev suffered equally attempting to cross the Spree River. Imagine those crossings and tarversings that the Germans kept the bulk of their panzer forces in the area! It would have been hell for the Soviets.

And I can back this up. In May of 1944, at Targul Frumos, (which I wrote an article for on these forums but was lost a while back...), Manteuffel was able to defeat a vastly superior force of Soviet manpower with his sole GrossDeustchland Division and remnants of a small panzer division. Koniev was severly defeated and the actual defeat of Romania was pushed back by over two months. Although small, and almost inconsequential, victories like these were repeated all over the front, and it would have surely been costly to the Red Army. So, the Allied Armies in France actually allowed the Red Army to sweep over Eastern Germany in a campaign that would be less costly, both in material and men.

So, in conclusion, the West wasn't as useless as you think.


Leningrad was the longest siege in human history. However, worst I doubt it. Although more people died in that siege than in any other siege, you can't compare the brutality to such sieges such as the ones that Chinggis Khan set up against his enemies. You can't compare it to the siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, that when the Christian army entered it slaughtered Muslim, Jew and Christian alike - accounts saying that the soldiers slaughtered with blood to their ankles. But that's a mere perspective - their will be those that will attribute it as you have done, and you really can't argue against it. So, I will end my own argument here.

Where did you get this information, I had never heared of such? I knew that the US gave some trucks to be used for our Katushas, but I have never heared of them getting food sent to Moscow, it's kind of hard to belive too, but not impossible. America wanted the Soviet Union to fall almost as much as they wanted Germany to fall. ALthough you ahve made a good argument, I'm not sure that moscow would've ever fallen, the red army would've defended it lie kthey defended Stalingrad and Leningrad.

I don't exactly remember, but it was one of these:

Beevor, Antony, Stalingrad
Glantz, David M., Leningrad

Also, information tends to lean towards this in articles written by Pat McTaggart for Military History, especially his well written article on the battles revolving around Murmansk.

I think what you're trying to prove is German superiority in tanks, and the fact that the Tiger I was better, just doesn't prove it. The Soviet IS-II could match the Tiger and the Tiger II on the field - with its 122mm gun, especially. By the end of 1943 the Soviet industry was able to put out massive amounts of high technology, and the Germans, in the end, just couldn't compete with either production, or the technology.

Also, every time a German tank came out, which was thought advance, the Soviets had already come out with a better one. The Pz. II was out preformed by the T-26 Light Tank in the Ebro during the Spanish Civil War. The Pz. III, and Pz. IVs were outpreformed by all variants of the T-34 and the heavy KV-Is and KV-IIs. The Tiger line was outpreformed by the Iosef Stalin lines. So, German superiority in armor was just non-existant. It was German superiority in strategy revolving around the use of this armor.

Late Panzer II models were superior to T-26 in terms of armor and firepower. T-26 had non-existing armor. 15mm on front, side and rear. That kind of armor was easily popped by almost anything. Indeed, Panzer IIIs were outdated compared to T-34/76 but Panzer IV was not. The earlier Panzer IVs armed with short barreled 75mm low velocity guns were not that effective agaisnt T-34, but they were replaced with models armed with long barreled high velocity 75mm guns that had better armor penetration power than T-34/76.

KV-II was a very powerful tank, armed with powerful maingun and strong armor but only about 330 were build between 1940 and 1941. Why is that? Because the production facilities of KV-II were located on the western Russia, and these were taken by the Germans.

KV-I was a good tank, certainly the best tank of 1930s and 1941. However, in 1942-1943 the maingun was becoming too weak to be able to penetrate heavy German AFVs, and the armor of KV-I was becoming too weak agaisnt German AFVs armed with long barreled 75mm gun and 75mm AT-guns. It was also relatively slow, and mechanical problems accurred.

IS-II was not as good as Tiger II. IS-II could only carry little more than 20 shells, while Tiger II could carry over 80 shells. Because of the heavy weight and large size of the 122mm shells that IS-II used, it took long to reload the gun. There was also very little room inside IS-II for the crew. Also, earlier IS-II models build in 1944 had the problem that the side armor was easily penetrated by 75mm German AT-guns or AFVs armed with long barreled 75mm gun. Tiger II had better armor protection and more effective gun than Soviet IS-II, but Im not saying IS-II was a bad tank.

Im hoping that you arent beliving the stories that Tiger II was slow, piece of junk that always broke down. Tiger II was even faster than Panzer IV, which was not as heavy as Tiger II. Tiger II was a good tank of very good design, but because of the war situation they didnt have time to fix the mechanical problem issue, but that doesnt mean Tiger II was a bad tank. Hadnt it been for Allied bombing, over 1100 Tiger IIs would have been produced, instead of less than 500.

Also, read this.

On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks ( IS-IIs ), and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner,
schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,
East Germany, April of 1945.

Birkin wrote:

Late Panzer II models were superior to T-26 in terms of armor and firepower. T-26 had non-existing armor. 15mm on front, side and rear. That kind of armor was easily popped by almost anything. Indeed, Panzer IIIs were outdated compared to T-34/76 but Panzer IV was not. The earlier Panzer IVs armed with short barreled 75mm low velocity guns were not that effective agaisnt T-34, but they were replaced with models armed with long barreled high velocity 75mm guns that had better armor penetration power than T-34/76.

OK, that still doesn't make the Panzer II a better tank. Ranking tanks doesn't mean who has the bigger gun. Proof was that the Panzer II just couldn't stand up to the T-26 during the Spanish Civil War

Also, the Panzer IV you're referring to was the Panzer IV Ausf. H, and you're comparing it to a 1934 model T-34. The T-34s that were brought out to battle the Panzer, the T-34/85 had superior armor, and superior firepower to the Panzer IV Ausf. H.

Quote:

KV-II was a very powerful tank, armed with powerful maingun and strong armor but only about 330 were build between 1940 and 1941. Why is that? Because the production facilities of KV-II were located on the western Russia, and these were taken by the Germans.

What does that prove? The Germans barely brought out about 700 tanks a month, about 600 average.

Quote:

KV-I was a good tank, certainly the best tank of 1930s and 1941. However, in 1942-1943 the maingun was becoming too weak to be able to penetrate heavy German AFVs, and the armor of KV-I was becoming too weak agaisnt German AFVs armed with long barreled 75mm gun and 75mm AT-guns. It was also relatively slow, and mechanical problems accurred.

Again, your comparing a 1941 tank with ordnance of later years. That doesn't cut it... it's like comparring the US Navy of 1940, with the British nay of 1812. Consequently, it doesn't help in making a point for German ordnace superiority.

Quote:

IS-II was not as good as Tiger II. IS-II could only carry little more than 20 shells, while Tiger II could carry over 80 shells. Because of the heavy weight and large size of the 122mm shells that IS-II used, it took long to reload the gun. There was also very little room inside IS-II for the crew. Also, earlier IS-II models build in 1944 had the problem that the side armor was easily penetrated by 75mm German AT-guns or AFVs armed with long barreled 75mm gun. Tiger II had better armor protection and more effective gun than Soviet IS-II, but Im not saying IS-II was a bad tank.

The IS-II had a 122mm long barreled tank. The Tiger II couldn't stand up to it.

Comrade Vlad wrote:

If it's American textbooks, it's because they want to take all the credit for winning the GPW.

Damn straight.

That is not correct. IS-II mounted 122mm gun, and mounting gun of that caliber was not always a good thing. The 122mm guns mounted on IS-II had better HE capability than AP. Tiger II could survive a blast from it.

You dont seem to realise...ONLY a bit more than 300 KV-IIs were build during the whole war.

And Panzer IIs used during Operation Barbarosa were better than T-26s. The Panzer IIs used in Spanish Civil War were earlier production models. The reason for their action in Spanish Civil War was that earlier models had weak armor, but this issue had been fixed later on and Panzer-II was better than T-26. T-26 was far from a tank. It had 15mm, non-existing armor on front, side and rear, that was easily popped by anything. During Winter War Finnish forces destroyed and hundreds T-26s.

No, Im talking about later production models. The fact is that in 1942-1943 the maingun was becoming too weak to be able to penetrate heavy German AFVs, and the armor of KV-I was becoming too weak agaisnt German AFVs armed with long barreled 75mm gun and 75mm AT-guns. It was also relatively slow, and mechanical problems accurred. KV-II is a difrent tank from KV-I. KV-I was certainly the best tank from 1930s to 1941? Certainly. Best tank of 1942-1945? No. T-34/76 suprassed KV-I in the terms that it had same gun, very good speed and good armor.

IS-II a good tank? Certainly. Better than Tiger II? No. de facto.