Infantry Against Tanks 1941

[Mad Russian]

There is no way to get around Molotov Cocktails. If your Soviet infantry have them they throw them first. When they do, almost always to no effect, the Germans then simply shoot your men dead unless you have the equivalent of a human wave going, before they can throw their much more effective AT grenades.

Have them all throw them at once. Get rid of them.

In a designed scenario the designer can simply not supply the men with the MC. That's not completely historical. Especially in 1941. They used them because it was all they had. Don't make your Soviet infantry too deadly in the early war years. They weren't historically. The use, or lack there of, of MC's can give your Soviet infantry some badly needed stiffening at times. As Bear pointed out the Soviets didn't always run away. There were times they fought and fought hard. If you have an action where that happened think about increasing the level of AT grenades, by reducing the number of MC's, in the Soviet infantry units.

In a QB, CMBB will give MC's to your men every time, all the way to Berlin.

[quote='Mad Russian' pid='330119' dateline='1285194639']
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?

I don't read Signal magazine. I have never seen a single article in that publication. As a serious student of history that work is, almost without exception, pure fiction.

You will find on page 7 of the Department of the Army pamphlet No. 20-230 Russian Combat Methods in World War II Dated: Ca. November 1950 since you seem to prefer those, the statement concerning Soviets feigning surrender only to shoot German soldiers in the back. Check the last paragraph.

You can find it here:

http://www.easy39th.com/files/Pam_20-230...I_1950.pdf


Instead, look at the same authors you mention and some of these others;
"Hitler Moves East 1941-1943" by Paul Carell
"Lost Victories" by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein
"Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian
"Panzer Battles" by Maj. Gen. F.W. von Mellenthin
"Barbarossa: The Russian - German Conflict, 1941-1945" by Alan Clark
"Barbarossa to Berlin, A Chronology of the Campaigns on the Eastern Front 1941 to 1945: Volume One The Long Drive East, 22 June to 18 November 1942" by Brian Taylor
"Before Stalingrad: Barbarossa - Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941" by David M. Glantz
"Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War" by David M. Glantz
"Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War 1941-1945" by David M. Glantz
"The Initial Period of War on the Eastern Front; 22 June – August 1941" by David Glantz
"Operation Barbarossa 1941 (1) Army Group South" by Robert Kirchubel
"Operation Barbarossa 1941 (2) Army Group North" by Robert Kirchubel
"Operation Barbarossa 1941 (3) Army Group Center" by Robert Kirchubel
"Operation Barbarossa: Strategy and Tactics on the Eastern Front, 1941" by Bryan I. Fugate
"Panzer In Russland" by Horst Scheibert and Ulrich Elfrath
"Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of World War II on the Eastern Front" by Constantine Pleshakov "Stalin's Keys to Victory: The Rebirth of the Red Army in WWII" by Walter S. Dunn, Jr.
"The Road to Stalingrad: Stalin's War with Germany Volume 1" by John Erickson
"The Russo-German War 1941-1945" by Albert Seaton
"War on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: The German Soldier in Russia" by James Lucas
"When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" by David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House
"Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War" by John Ellis
"Russia's Heroes 1941-1945" by Albert Axell
"Army Group North: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945" by Werner Haupt
"Army Group Center: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945" by Werner Haupt
"Army Group South: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945" by Werner Haupt
"Why the Allies Won" by Richard Avery

These are books that I have in my library that cover the war in the east in 1941, that I can recommend. I'm absolutely certain there are others. I know that because there are still books I want to add to my library....:cool:

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.

See the above list for primary authors to look at. The Germans immediately after the war had an agenda. The Soviets were stupid and the Germans only lost because of Hitler and because the Western Allies didn't help them against the Soviets. That Slav mentality you brought up earlier. I look at any information from German sources with a skeptical eye. They have an agenda. So do Soviet sources. Best to get information from both sides and see where the middle ground is. That's closer to where the truth lies.

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.

Not if you get burned to death by the gasoline in the glass bottle. You want to ride on the back of a T-34 and bounce all around and even jump off with a glass bottle full of gasoline? You're a better man than me Bear, because I don't.

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.

The surveys? Read the books from the Soviet perspective of the war. They were sending men straight into combat with, at times, no basic training. The Germans were running out of men. The Soviets weren't. That's quite simplistic but pretty much the case.

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

It was an extremely poor incendiary bomb. Under the right circumstances and a good bit of luck it could kill a tank, pill box, bunker, houses, good shyt like that.

Talk to you later old friend. G'day

It's always good to discuss with you. You make me think and bring up points few others do.

Good Hunting.

MR