Infantry Against Tanks 1941

[Bear]

They also surrendered in droves. At times without a single shot being fired.

One of the main reasons they considered Russian infantry so dangerous, is they would shoot the Germans in the back, after either having surrendered, or waiting until the Germans had moved past them, before opening fire. Nobody else they had fought did that. The Germans considered that an extremely dangerous situation as you might expect.

This seems to be a paraphrase of an article from SIGNAL magazine, Goebbels propaganda media. The Slavs are inferior, sub humans and do not surrender quietly. The Czechs, Yugoslavs and Greeks fought on with gusto and panache.
I am willing to say many ANZACS shot Axis troops in the back. Are you implying that Sharpshooters and Snipers are unethical violating what...Geneva Convention or just the Nazis Propagand Ministry?

The Russians certainly weren't the French. But they were extremely fickle. Fight like a lion one minute and be working for the Germans as Hiwi's the next.

This is an entirely different issue, how to survive, resist and infiltrate in enemy occupied territory.

I can quote as many passages to support either side of the argument. Carell is only one author. One from a Soviet perspective would be David Glantz. Or Steven Zaloga. Would you like quotes from them about how often Soviet infantry just folded up and went home? Or did human wave attacks?

Paul Carell is the only secondary source. All others I referred to are primary sources. The U.S. Army stuff comes from years of interviews, interrogations and German and Russian data and statistics. Most notably the large book from the War College.

Your carrying a molotov cocktail all the way to Berlin brings up another point. Would you carry a glass bottle filled with gasoline all over the Ukraine and into Prussia and finally to Berlin? I wouldn't. Glass breaks. If it breaks near fire YOU BURN. No, I think I'll go with the other more effective, less user lethal, weapons developed for killing the tanks I have to assault.

If the bottle breaks I'll get another unless we find something better on the road to Berlin, eh.

The last six months of 1941 were a tumultuous time. The longer the war went on, the better the Soviets got in both infantry, and armored, combat tactics. They were also holding the line because the Soviets were replacing their losses and the Germans were not. Less attackers, same number or greater number of defenders...hmmm...easier on the defense. No wonder they were holding the line better.

The surveys of the combat starting in September 41 tells us that the Soviet Army had better trained and disciplined men. The delaying actions of July-August paid off, whole corps lost only to buy time. By September, around Vyzma salient the German field commanders found out that Barbarossa was over and done.

Molotov cocktails were at best a stop gap measure. If they were such great weapons why did any nation develop any other means for infantry to attack armor?

Great is relative to the purpose behind the weapon, eh.
The Molotov was an incendiary bomb, it could kill a tank, pill box, bunker, houses, good shyt like that.

Good Hunting.

MR

Talk to you later old friend. G'day