Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 360
Comments: 0

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page 1, 2  Next
 Author
Message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:44 am Post subject: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

I guess everyone who has something about Stalingrad battle came accross ill-fated counter attack of 13.GvRD on September 15th 1942 beeing a common example of the massive Soviet losses in Stalingrad:
Quote:
Though initially successful, the German attacks stalled in the face of Soviet reinforcements brought in from across the Volga. The 13th Guards Rifle Division, assigned to counterattack at the Mamayev Kurgan and at Railway Station No. 1 suffered particularly heavy losses. Over 30 percent of its soldiers were killed in the first 24 hours, and just 320 out of the original 10,000 survived the entire battle. Both objectives were retaken, but only temporarily. The railway station changed hands 14 times in six hours. By the following evening, the 13th Guards Rifle Division had ceased to exist. So great were Soviet losses that at times, the life expectancy of a newly arrived soldier was less than a day, and the life expectancy of a Soviet officer was three days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

And here is the the official report of 13.GvRD HQ regarding losses sustained in a period of September 15th - October 29th 1942 which states 672men as irretrivable losses (KIA/MIA).

Quite a big difference from 320men left out of 10.000men stated in wiki - the source of common knowledge these days Smile



13??????.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  486.96 KB
 Viewed:  559 Time(s)

13??????.jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Drizzt

Rep: 121
votes: 9


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:20 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

It's very interesting. Just a thing: I suppose that "the entire battle" it means until 2 february 1943, anyway the "heavy losses" of the first couterattack are for sure not so heavy.

About official reports, I have read (sorry no fonts.. I have some readme, but I had forgotten to write the fonts) that on 15th october, commanders of 115th Rifle division and 112nd Rifle Brigade requested to cross the Volga giving to Chuikov false informations (official reports) about their divisional regiments: they say they were exausted, but Chuikov discovered they had again 600 and 900 men ready to fight.
Commanders of 42nd Rifle Brigade and 92nd rifle brigade crossed the volga with the pretext to speak with superiors, but, instead, hiding themselves on Golodnj island, in the middle of the Volga, sending "imaginary reports" (to hide the truth of their defection) until they have been discovered (and processed).
I can't say how much is true what I have written, but my guess is: is not possible that some commanders have "exaggerate in positive" in their reports to distance themselves from bad episodes like the ones I have reported?

Drizzt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Quote:
It's very interesting. Just a thing: I suppose that "the entire battle" it means until 2 february 1943, anyway the "heavy losses" of the first couterattack are for sure not so heavy.

This report has 213 pages covering all the losses of 13GvRD during Stalingrad battle with all names listed.
672men KIA/MIA are the irretrivable casualties sustained since September 15th till October 29th.

Quote:
About official reports, I have read (sorry no fonts.. I have some readme, but I had forgotten to write the fonts) that on 15th october, commanders of 115th Rifle division and 112nd Rifle Brigade requested to cross the Volga giving to Chuikov false informations (official reports) about their divisional regiments: they say they were exausted, but Chuikov discovered they had again 600 and 900 men ready to fight.
Commanders of 42nd Rifle Brigade and 92nd rifle brigade crossed the volga with the pretext to speak with superiors, but, instead, hiding themselves on Golodnj island, in the middle of the Volga, sending "imaginary reports" (to hide the truth of their defection) until they have been discovered (and processed).

the story was about the commander and comissar of 149 RBr who moved their HQ to Golodnyi island on September 24th when the Germans pushed the brigade to Volga and because of that (lack of chain of command) the unit sustained heavy losses. Not sure what reports do you mean. Both confessed and were executed.

Quote:
I can't say how much is true what I have written, but my guess is: is not possible that some commanders have "exaggerate in positive" in their reports to distance themselves from bad episodes like the ones I have reported?

Such commanders (doing false reports) would not live long in any army.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Drizzt

Rep: 121
votes: 9


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

When I say "the entire battle", I refer to wikipedia, so I suppose wikipedia means until 2nd february 1943 (about the 320 men remained). I'm sure your report it's correct.

About all other info, unfortunately I don't have fonts. Anyway the second story is exactly also for you (ok, brigades name are not the same, but the story it's the same). The radio men were with the commanders and send the false reports in this way (no documents).

About my guess: I don't mean "exaggerate positive" reports in the sense of false reports: I mean that in a battle like these, sometime a commander can don't have a full knowledge about isolated fighting troops, and maybe sometime he prefer don't considerer someone dead or missing without a full confirm from his comrades (to avoid "defeatism" shadows on him). Than, this low-grade commander refer to more high commander and so on.. A division is big and this battle is caothic.. Someone dead in october can be reported in official documents in november. Anyway it was just a guess, I'm sure the document you speak about it's correct.

Drizzt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Ivan_Zaitzev

Rep: 56.1
votes: 3


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Really interesting Dima! Sadly I don't speak Russian.
I believe that information is taken from Beevor's book. One of my favorite books on Stalingrad is Michael K. Jone's, but he does not say anything about 13th losses that I could find. I wonder what does Glantz say in his trilogy...  Confused

Rodimtsev has at least one book in russian about Stalingrad. In english it's name is something like The guards resisted to the death, something like that, but it was never translated. The text is free in the internet, maybe you could take a look and see if the commander says anything about losses?


The real Close Combat starts when you are out of ammo.
Have you hugged your AT Gun today?
My Youtube Channel
http://closecombat2.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Quote:
When I say "the entire battle", I refer to wikipedia, so I suppose wikipedia means until 2nd february 1943 (about the 320 men remained). I'm sure your report it's correct.

ahh you are right here! Will try to make compilation of month reports to see how many they lost KIA/MIA during the whole battle.
Still it states 13GvRD lost 30% of its men killed in first 24 hours which is absolute false.

Quote:
Rodimtsev has at least one book in russian about Stalingrad. In english it's name is something like The guards resisted to the death, something like that, but it was never translated. The text is free in the internet, maybe you could take a look and see if the commander says anything about losses?

I didn't read his book but I know the myth that 13GvRD didn't have enought small arms came from Chuikov memoirs but he meant automatic weapons and ATR as it had full load of rifles. And by September 15th (date of Volga crossing) the division received huge amount of LMG/SMG/ATR from 62A stocks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
US_Brake

Rep: 24.2
votes: 22


PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

We and our allies owe and acknowledge an ever-lasting debt of gratitude to the armies and people of the Soviet Union. - Frank Knox, US Secretary of the Navy




Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
TheImperatorKnight

Rep: 30.4
votes: 1


PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

That's very interesting! When I studied history, we were told never to rely or even trust wikipedia. Anyone can write it, and as proven, it isn't always accurate.

Ivan mentioned Glantz, and he's of the opinion that the West has been over reliant on German documents (probably since the Soviet archives were locked), so perhaps that's where the discrepancy in numbers come from.

I know that with the opening of the Soviet archives, a lot of the old myths can be called into question. For example, Glantz recently said in this video (it starts at the relevant point) that the Battle of Kursk wasn't the biggest tank battle in World War 2, and that Brody 1941 was actually larger. Whether he's right or not, I'm not sure because he doesn't give any accurate numbers in the video. Maybe someone here can give some numbers?


I have a Close Combat Youtube Channel

My Small Maps Mod for Close Combat: Gateway to Caen. Install guide and discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Ivan,

Quote:
I believe that information is taken from Beevor's book.

yes, have just checked and it's indeed from his Stalingrad book...

TIK,

Quote:
For example, Glantz recently said in this video (it starts at the relevant point) that the Battle of Kursk wasn't the biggest tank battle in World War 2, and that Brody 1941 was actually larger. Whether he's right or not, I'm not sure because he doesn't give any accurate numbers in the video. Maybe someone here can give some numbers?

yes, it's long know fact in Russia that Brody-Rovno-Lutsk battle (23.06-01.07) had more tanks amassed than Kursk:
5+ Soviet Tank corps ~2900 tanks vs 6 German PzDiviions ~750 tanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 1:56 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Another lie by Beevor:
That the Soviet regime was almost as unforgiving toward its own soldiers as toward the enemy is demonstrated by the total figure of 13,500 executions, both summary and judicial, during the battle of Stalingrad.'' Mr. Beevor writes. Red Army soldiers were shot if they deserted. They were also executed ''if they failed to shoot immediately at any comrades seen trying to desert or to surrender to the enemy.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/26/books/books-of-the-times-an-avalanche-of-death-that-redirected-a-war.html

And the reality:

From August 1st to the October 1st 1942 the Barrier troops o:

Stopped 140.755 soldiers of them:

1) 3.980 men arrested.
2) 1.189 men shot.
3) 2.776 men sent to Penal companies.
4) 185 men sent to Penal battalions.
5) Returned to their units 131.094 men.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 8:33 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

here's the thing though

We all know the Soviets were weak pussies and lied to their superiors.. or told their superiors what they wanted to hear.

They had no heart and would not stand up to authority.. a few good men could have saved the world from soviet atrocities but no like the Nazis they failed miserably.

That is the historical facts and no amount of denying it will change it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Quote:
That's very interesting! When I studied history, we were told never to rely or even trust wikipedia. Anyone can write it, and as proven, it isn't always accurate.


I'd say the same about "official" Russian reeports
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 10:35 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

schrecken wrote (View Post):
here's the thing though

We all know the Soviets were weak pussies and lied to their superiors.. or told their superiors what they wanted to hear.

They had no heart and would not stand up to authority.. a few good men could have saved the world from soviet atrocities but no like the Nazis they failed miserably.

That is the historical facts and no amount of denying it will change it.

can you prove it or you just believe in it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 7:34 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):
That's very interesting! When I studied history, we were told never to rely or even trust wikipedia. Anyone can write it, and as proven, it isn't always accurate.


That is because those in academia are afraid of wikipedia.

In addition, many people designated by the wikipedia community can edit an article. So it is possible that articles can be edited and/or corrected and are scrutinized by many editors. That is something that does not always occur with academic equivalents. And as wikipedia has already proven, the accuracy of their articles can surpass works that are generated from academic sources.

Wikipedia is indeed Earth's encyclopedia. It was ramped up to its unbelievable size and importance in less time that has taken many historical authors to complete even 1 work on 1 subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Wikipedia is indeed Earth's encyclopedia. It was ramped up to its unbelievable size and importance in less time that has taken many historical authors to complete even 1 work on 1 subject.[/quote]


It's a very poor form of reference. Something to which if you had been to a University would know you can't use because of it's inaccuracy. Cheers for the laugh I guess.

ps I hope the quote system works this time.......it didn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:29 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

sod98 wrote (View Post):
It's [Wikipedia] a very poor form of reference. Something to which if you had been to a University would know you can't use because of it's inaccuracy. Cheers for the laugh I guess.

ps I hope the quote system works this time.......it didn't.


Wikipedia endeavors to be an encyclopedia and happens to have a gazillion articles. Many of these articles are very accurate. So, to classify the whole of Wikipedia as inaccurate is a laugh. And yes, we have been around the University, many times for many years and many degrees. Same with my kids, and yes the University cannot even come close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Wikipedia endeavors to be an encyclopedia and happens to have a gazillion articles. Many of these articles are very accurate. So, to classify the whole of Wikipedia as inaccurate is a laugh. And yes, we have been around the University, many times for many years and many degrees. Same with my kids, and yes the University cannot even come close.[/quote]

Calm down kid I don't mean to cause offense. But Wiki is a very poor reference and even you should know that. But I guess that depends on what Uni you have attended. You get what you pay for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

sod98 wrote (View Post):
Calm down kid I don't mean to cause offense. But Wiki is a very poor reference and even you should know that. But I guess that depends on what Uni you have attended. You get what you pay for.


Wikipedia is an OUTSTANDING reference, and even you should know that. My youngest currently attends ASU (Arizona State University) and me thinks students there can use source material from Wikipedia, they just cannot plagiarize Wikipedia, which is where most educators are coming from when they try to ban Wikipedia in secondary schools.

So calm down kid, K?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

sod98 wrote (View Post):
Calm down kid I don't mean to cause offense.


Yes you did. And by they way, I haven't posted anything that would require that I calm myself.

Oh, and I just spent a few minutes searching some (but not all) of the ASU Academic Affairs Policy Manual, and so far I can't find Wikipedia even mentioned. But, it is a beeg manual. Perhaps they leave that kind of thing to individual faculty members?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Common knowldge vs docs Reply with quote

Oh, and I just spent a few minutes searching some (but not all) of the ASU Academic Affairs Policy Manual, and so far I can't find Wikipedia even mentioned. But, it is a beeg manual. Perhaps they leave that kind of thing to individual faculty members?[/quote]

Well maybe it's the Uni you attended needed to spell it out to you. I can assure you Wiki isn't an accepted reference. Maybe lesser Uni's have lower standards. But please calm down and once again accept my true apology. Also Dutch people do have a great sense of humour as you have just proved - cheers again lol.


Wiki is as good as these people posting articles - like you, full of knowledge and it shows.

ps   still the quote system isn't working.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> CC5 Stalingrad
Goto page 1, 2  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




Forums ©





In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited and
found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some of the great Close Combat
mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank all the members of our volunteer staff that have
helped over the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!