Operation "Sea Lion"

[Martok]

....

[Dodge_272]

....

Ran out of oil near the end so it was touch and go for a while when the remains of the Royal Navy cut off my supply convoys. Managed to use what little oil I captured along to the way to feed my panzer army for the assault on London.

[Meneldil]

While we're having a look at what-if scenarii, what if the french navy surrendered to Hitler (without being sunk by the allies or destroying itself) ? AFAIK, the French navy was quite decent in 1940. Obviously not as good as the Royal Navy or the Imperial Navy, but still better than anything the Germans could field.

[Yarema]

For the love of God, do some people on this forum get their information from the Deutshce Wochensau or Volkicher Beobachter???

The Russians outclassed the Germans in EVERY SINGLE DETAIL since 1941, and well before.
The production of t-34 was already under way since 1930s, and in june 41 the soviets already had several hundreds of then in the occupied baltic republics. i wil not wright about the whole rest of their equipment, because i don't have enough life for that.

So please just name ONE german heavy tank from 1941 (the russians already had their KV).
Please just name ONE german swimming tank from 1941 (the russians already had their t-38).
Name some german paratrooper corps. Not divisions, the whole corps! (the russians had 500000 of them).

i'm not going to wright about the whole rest, i don't have enough life for that...

Anyway, if USSR would attack first Germany would collabse in no longer than 4 months. The had nowhere to retreat to, u know (countrary to the Russians). And they had army of the second strategic group (countrary to the Russians).

[Brenus]

Er, yeah, but in what is it relevant with Sea Lion operation?

[A Very Super Market]

I thought the whole thing about "Russian leadership crippled by purges" leading to being pushed back to Moscow was pretty much fact?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I pulled off operation sealion on hearts of iron even with the CORE mod! Can't have been that hard!

This thread has been won.

[Beskar]

Biggest threat to Germany was Russia and they knew it. Stalin's 5 year plans brought Russia kicking and screaming to the 20th Century and with the help of the previous German government who supplied plans/arms/technology with the Russians, in return the Russian's allowing the German military to secretly train there, the Russian's really did have an advantage.

The fact was, Hitler had to attack Russia as soon as possible, because Time favoured the Russians, however, on that note, Hitler was never in an "optiminal" situation where he could invade Russia and by all accounts, probably did attack Russia at an optiminal moment when he took Stalin by surprise, due to the fact it was illogical for him to do so.

Apart from the whole conspiracy talk where Pearl Harbour was set-up as an excuse for the US to join the war, if the Japanese restarted the Russo-Japanese war instead, it could have really applied pressure to the Russians.


Heading more on-topic, Hilter didn't need to invade Britain, all he had to do was cripple Britain to take them out of the war effort. Eventually enough, Britain would have had to been forced to accept a ceasefire, if not a surrender.

The main catalyticism for America joining the world, however, was the Russians fighting Hitler back, because if they didn't join in, Western Europe as we know it would be a completely different place.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Except of course for the facts that Hitler declared war upon the USA on 11 December 1941 or 4 days after Pearl Harbor; and that the USSR received supplies from the USA even before (per the Lend Lease Act, October 1941) the USA was actually at war with Germany (11 December 1941).

EDIT: The then political elite in the USA was simply looking for any excuse to intervene and assert influence; even as the electorate was less enthusiastic about such intervention in Europe.

[Veho Nex]

I may be wrong but wasnt Hitler targetting american ships long before he declared war on them. Also, wasnt America trading with both axis and Allied powers during 39-41?

[Beskar]

Yeah, the Americans were hiding war supplies, etc on passager ships to Britain.

The declaring war on America was a pretty stupid move though, they should have fortified their position first.

[Yarema]

Beskar, I agree with you totally.

As for Sealion, I can hardly imagine any circumstances in which it could be possible. Even if the Germans would defeat the RAF (which they didn't), their Russian allies would stab them in the back, and that strike would be lethal for Germany.

[Brenus]

"their Russian allies would stab them in the back": This always come back and there is no ONE evidence, or even a smell of a flavour of a suspision of proof.
If USSR was ready to attack Nazi Germany, why not in 1940, May? They were in good position: Poland borders, not so far from Germany itself... It was just a ride as all German Pz Div were engaged against teh French and the British... So in September 1940, tell me what was the difference?

[Brenus]

"they should have fortified their position first."
They did later, and for what benefit.
In less than 24 hours, the US and the Brits crushed the Rommel defenses, the Navy blowed up all possibilty for the Panzer Div to intervene (so Rommel Plan was not viable as Runstedt predicted it) and the US and UK Air Forces made any movements impossible.

[Yarema]

If hitler would land his men on the british beaches in 1940, Russia would attack him in 1940. He would not be completely ready, but he would have to attack before Hitler would strengthen his posistion in occupied europe. Stalin was far more intelligent than any other politician of ww2 (with the exeption of Churchill maybe) and he knew that.

But since Germany was unable to defeat Britain, he decided he could wait. Hitler was in a hopeless position anyway. From Stalin's point of view it seemed that Germany would lose the war sooner or later: the had to fight Britain, which also meant war with America (who was already supplying UK with everything thay had).
So why not wait a little longer, and let them all wear themselves down?

their Russian allies would stab them in the back": This always come back and there is no ONE evidence, or even a smell of a flavour of a suspicion of proof.

i don't know where did you get this nonsense from, but i assure you that libraries and book stores are full of books which will all tell you that prior to 22 June 1941 Stalin grouped an army of about 3 million men and more than 4000 tanks literally ON border with Germany. Right behind the army he placed great amount of gasoline, food, uniforms, etc. Later, it would all be used by the germans, who encircled the red army amassed on the border and made use of their fuel, armoured cars, or sometimes even tanks. I won't give you the books, because practically EVERY BOOK about the eastern front will tell you that within the first few days of the attack the Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners from the armies on the border, and captured great amounts of fuel, cars, etc. Get ANY BOOK about eastern front 1941, and you will find it in ANY BOOK.

You seem to be interested in the history of warfare (wow, you're on a total war forum), so you must know what does one do when preparing to an attack.

[Yarema]

oh and btw. (it's june 1941):
heavy tanks: Germany - NONE; USSR - KV 1
medium tanks: Gemany- PzIII, PzIV; USSR- T-34, BT-7
light tanks: Germany- PzII, PzI; USSR- T-28
light swimming tanks: Germany- NONE; USSR- T-40 (or 38, don't remember)
Parartroopers: Germany: about 15000; USSR: About 400 000

I could enumerate until dawn, but i'll ;et you check the books...
Hitler had 3600 tanks, Stalin had 22000 tanks, among them 2000 excellent t-34 and kv-1.
Paratroopers are an OFFENSIVE weapon, right?
you call that being unprepared or sth?

[Beskar]

Even if the Germans would defeat the RAF (which they didn't), their Russian allies would stab them in the back, and that strike would be lethal for Germany.

Russians had a time advantage. Germany was embroiled in war. Stalin was building up his own armies and strength, it was a matter of time before conflict arose, however, even Stalin was caught off-guard with Hitler's invasion and even dismissed it at first as misinformation.

Germany definitely got Russia into a pinch, however, Blitzkreig wasn't that effective in Russia, due to it being an almost endless mass of land, compared to the likes of France.

[Brenus]

“Russia would attack him in 1940”: Proof? Evidences? Plan? None. There is nowhere you can find a document allowing you to say that.
Yeah, I know, secret plan and the Barbarosa Trap, and all this non-sense, proved by nothing real:
“Soviet dictator, Stalin's, Red Army had been planning to invade Western Europe for about two years in 1941. The truth has been hidden from the world for nearly a half century.
In the 1990s, the truth began to surface as researchers in the Historical Archive and Military Memorial Center of the Red Army General Staff revealed a sensational document. The document is entitled: "Reflections of a Plan For The Strategic Deployment of the Armed Forces of The Soviet Union In The Event of War With Germany and Her Allies." The plan, obviously written in response to a directive from the dictator Stalin, was dated March 3 1941. The document was signed by
the top echelon of the Red Army General Staff, including: M.G. Vasilievsky, N. Vatutin, G. Zhukov and S. Timoshenko. It was all there, over fifteen pages of detailed maps and plans for the simultaneous invasion of Germany, Hungary and Rumania in 1941.”
That is it. This is THE proof….
Er, in 1938, the French Army was making plan to invade USSR by landing in Crimea… That is what the military called a simulation, a strategic war-game, Red against Blue.
For what we know between 1928 and 1941, the STAVKA had seven major operational war plans drafted, completed with fifteen reviews and revisions. So USSR planned 7 times to attack Europe. Well, of course, they were attacked as well, at least on paper…

Authors of this kind of books just imagine and try without any facts (real one, not the one they are making up: “There are reports of entire Air Force regiments which reported that they suffered negligible or no losses in the air or on the ground at the first day, and then simply abandoned their air bases and escaped by trucks and on foot. In 1941 Russia lost millions of soldiers. Only 32% of the reported losses were the dead and wounded”,),
They are just following in this the 1941 German Propaganda (Pre-emptive Strike).
It was a massive cover-up… Right. The Russian didn’t even succeeded to cover-up Kathyn, but THIS, they did it… Yeah…

What they provide is opinions not answers: “lot has been written on the tragedy of 1941. In the last few years a large amount of new publications appeared on the subject, but still they all explain the events of the beginning of the war differently. All of them keep asking the same question - why Red Army had suffered such a heavy defeat having had such a huge quantitative superiority in military equipment. Each publication provides an answer of its own. Some wrote that the USSR had planned to attack Germany and the Red Army concentration had an offensive nature and had not been able to react properly at being attacked unexpectedly, some wrote that the Army hadn't had enough new equipment, some stated that the data on Red Army equipment are incorrect” in Front lines edition.

Just for information: As late as June 1941, Colonel-General Halder described Soviet deployment as `rein defensiv', dismissing the idea of any major Red Army offensive as `nonsense'. He was even sceptical of Hitler's concern about a Soviet thrust towards the Romanian oil fields.

“i don't know where did you get this nonsense from, but i assure you that libraries and book stores are full of books which will all tell you that prior to 22 June 1941 Stalin grouped an army of about 3 million men and more than 4000 tanks literally ON border with Germany”
I don’t know where THEY find this, but it is simply not true.

“On the basis of the Russian Civil War (1918-20), the Red Army began to bill itself as ''an army of a new type'', inherently superior to all others. However, in late 1920, the Poles trounce it soundly. Later, Soviet intervention in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) reveals widespread obsolescence in armament and equipment. The Nazi--Soviet Pact of August 1939 gives Germany and the USSR a free hand to act against Poland. However, slack performance by the Red Army in the unopposed occupation of eastern Poland and the bungled war with Finland in the winter of 1939-40 necessitate sweeping military reforms.” Extract of The Red Army, 1918-1941 -From Vanguard of World Revolution to US Ally

That is not exactly the description of a Army ready for attacking a other army which defeated in no time two of very powerful enemies, is it?

“Get ANY BOOK about eastern front 1941, and you will find it in ANY BOOK.” So when the Germans captured the entire heavy equipment of the British in Dunkirk (and the French) it was because UK and France secretly wanted to invade Germany and Germans attack was pre-emptive…. Or more simply because retreating army are leaving equipment behind them?

If you want to read books, read about the Blitzkrieg and how it worked. The aim was not to destroy the enemy but to prevent him to fight. Guderian said something like this: My tanks are not there to fight enemy tanks but to cut them from their supplies so they can’t fight. See, no need of smoky explanations. Just read what the Germans said about it.

About Red Army equipment I will suggest to read REAL history books and you will see that if the Red Army figures were impressive, the preparation and the ready for action material was far less impressive…

However, I want to thanks you for this.
I had to read all this non-sense from a so call ”Suvorov” and it makes me laugh. It was good after a hard day at work…

[Yarema]

First off, You mentioned the "barbarossa trap", not me. i also find it to be nonsense
1. Do not compare french war games to real sovietpreparations. Why?
War games consist of playing, and drinking coffea in front of the table, real preparations consist of forming armies and buliding tanks (how many times do i have to repeat that USSR had at least 22000 excelent bt-7, t-28, t-38, t-40, t-34, kv-1? not to mention paratroopers and the whole rest.)
2. Do not compare Dunkirk (that was a retreat after a campaign in france and the low countries ) to the defeat of june 1941 (that happened right on the border). Geography will help you notice the difference.
3. The term STAVKA did not appear until late 1941, and even than and afterwards it was not a formal term. And once again, do not compare war games to real preaparations. War games do not consist of buliding more than 22000 tanks.
4. "The red amry had a lot of equipment of poor quality"- that might sound well when Goebels is talking, but not in a 21 century discussion.
I already made a small comparison of russian and german tanks FROM JUNE 1941, but in case sb didn't notice i will copy/ paste:
oh and btw. (it's june 1941):
heavy tanks: Germany - NONE; USSR - KV 1
medium tanks: Gemany- PzIII, PzIV; USSR- T-34, BT-7
light tanks: Germany- PzII, PzI; USSR- T-28
light swimming tanks: Germany- NONE; USSR- T-40 (or 38, don't remember)
Soviet light tanks outclassed german light tanks, Soviet medium tanks outclassed german medium tanks, as for heavy tanks - the soviets had kv-1, germany had none. compare the number and quality of the weapons of both sides FROM JUNE 41 and you'll find the russians were more technologically advanced in almost everything. Unless of course you will compare german medium tanks to russian light tanks, like Goebbels did in Deutsche Wohensau.
5. The preparations can NEVER be finished definitely, the same applied to german Barbarossa plan.
6. Perhaps you will give me some other reason why Stalin amassed 3mln soldiers right on the border, and why did he sent all his planes to airports nera the border, etc.

nice writing with you anyway, too bad we can't drink a beer (or 6). that's the second thing a
i like after history

[Yarema]

oh one more thing - i read a lot of ww2 books, not just suvorov/solonin/pleshakov stuff.
and no offense - i find ALL books of western european and american authors ABOUT RUSSIA to be rather worthless ( with the noble exception of Richard Pipes, but he is a Polish Jew). Western european authors do not know anything about Russia, their general idea goes like that:
"Russia is big, and Russia is poor (and we do not want to know that their poverty is their own fault, don't tell us, we don't wanna know!). They are frustrated because of their poverty. So they start conflicts with every neighbour, but we don not care, since we think that they have some stupid "special rights" which allow them to do everything and which do not apply to other nations."
As for myself, I consider myself a fan of Red Army's effort on the eastern front, even though it brought my country 45 years of slavery and about 2mln dead at the hands of NKVD.

[Brenus]

“Perhaps you will give me some other reason why Stalin amassed 3mln soldiers right on the border, and why did he sent all his planes to airports near the border, etc.”
For the same reason than the French put them on the German Borders, for the same reason than the Belgium put theirs on the German and French Borders…
You defend you countries as soon you can. You seems obsess by the 3 millions soldiers. In 1942-43, USA had 20 millions men at arms…
The French had 3 500 tnks to oppose to the Germans. But a bad use of this tanks made all this material useless and then were use by the Germans…


If you study where the Russian lost most of their troops, it was NOT at the borders. Minsk, Smolensk, Karkov are not in Poland…
Most of the Russian planes were obsolete (Rata I 16, Polikarpov etc) and were destroy on the ground, most of the times during the first days of Barbarosa. This will hugely contribute to the high number of victories of German Pilots as Eric Hartmann.

Yes the Germans had no heavy tank equivalent to the KV but the KV 1 been a failure as the French Bis or T 34, but they crews were not trained and they were lacking of radio equipment, same failure than the French Somua S 35 which was better than the PZ III but couldn’t really manoeuvre.

“Do not compare Dunkirk (that was a retreat after a campaign in france and the low countries ) to the defeat of june 1941”
I compared them as you mentioned the seizure of equipment.
June 1941 was indeed a set back for the Red Army. However it was no defeat. It was a succession of successes for the Germans and Allies but they never succeeded in defeating the Red Army as a all. The Russian did retreat. Sometimes too late, but they did. So the bulk of the Red Army was still there and was able in December 1941 to defeat the German and even to push them back in 1942.

“The red amry had a lot of equipment of poor quality"- that might sound well when Goebels is talking, but not in a 21 century discussion.”
They had obsolete Air Forces, most of the front lines tanks were inefficient (as shown in Finland) their soldiers were poorly trained and theirs officers absolutely under trained thanks to Stalin and his Purges… And it is a discussion of the 21st Century. The few KV1 and T 34 made no difference in the outcome of the first months…
Come on the BT’s were light tanks, the BT 7 being equiped with the 45 mm barrel…

Sorry have to go

To be continued

[Yarema]

1. Your answer is irrelevant - the french got their soldiers on a FORTIFIED LINE - no tanks, just infantry and bunkers, with planes far behind the border line.
The USSR had way more soldiers than the 3mln i mentioned, but the point is that those unfotunate 3mln who got surrounded by the first german attack (only 1 out of 10 would survive the captivity) were aan ASSAULT FORCE - with tanks and airplanes as close to the border as possible.

f you study where the Russian lost most of their troops, it was NOT at the borders. Minsk, Smolensk, Karkov are not in Poland…

- I beg to differ, it was the same assault army. They Started to retreat soon after the attack started and got surrounded a bit farther (Minsk)... Tanks drive quickly through the steppes, u know. As for Kharkov, the soviets did sustain large casualties there, but in may 1942, not in 1941!

Yes the Germans had no heavy tank equivalent to the KV but the KV 1 been a failure as the French Bis or T 34, but they crews were not trained and they were lacking of radio equipment, same failure than the French Somua S 35 which was better than the PZ III but couldn’t really manoeuvre.

T-34 a failure?!?!? The BEST tank in ww2 a failure?
KV a failure? The world's first heavy tank a failure? Nobody else had heavy tanks until late 1942 (Pzkpfw VI Tiger)!!! So KV was a failure compared to what?
As for the radio stuff and lack of training, I agree fully, but this was the problem of Red Army until the end of the war, the Red Army leaders didn't see it as a problem and were willing to attack anyway.
"If I knew that Russians have such tanks, I would have not attacked" - A. Hitler about KV and T-34. Failure? Compared to what? Remember we're still in 1941, do not compare KV to Pzkpfw VI Tiger.

I compared them as you mentioned the seizure of equipment.

- so the comparison was irrelevant, you agree?

June 1941 was indeed a set back for the Red Army. However it was no defeat. It was a succession of successes for the Germans and Allies but they never succeeded in defeating the Red Army as a all. The Russian did retreat. Sometimes too late, but they did.

- i never wrote anything that would challenge that!

So the bulk of the Red Army was still there and was able in December 1941 to defeat the German and even to push them back in 1942.

- Yees, the Red Army won a great victory at the gates of Moscow, but it wasn't the bulk of the red army, but the second strategic group, which was being formed in Siberia. The bulk of the red army was destroyed until late september 41.

They had obsolete Air Forces, most of the front lines tanks were inefficient (as shown in Finland) their soldiers were poorly trained and theirs officers absolutely under trained thanks to Stalin and his Purges… And it is a discussion of the 21st Century. The few KV1 and T 34 made no difference in the outcome of the first months…
Come on the BT’s were light tanks, the BT 7 being equiped with the 45 mm barrel…

WHAT? Obstolete Air forces? Compared to what? The german planes were on the same level, please compare the technical stats.
BT-7, Bystrohodnyi tank 7, a construction of Walter Christie, a light tank? In that case Pz III was also a light tank, since it's cannon and it's engine was inferior to the that of BT-7 (as for 1941, remember).. They were equal only in armour, i think. Remember we're talking about 1941, so do not compare BT-7 from 1941 to PzIIIL or PzIIIJ from 1942, but to PzIIIF from 1941.
in 1941 Stalin had more than a 1000 excellent T-34 and KV-1, about 8000 (I think) moderately good BT-7, and more than 12000 light tanks (t-28, t-40, t-38, including swimming tanks). Hitler had 3500 tanks ( no heavy tanks at all), some of those 3500 were obstolete and useless PzI and PzII. The Wermacht made reports that those "tanks" cannot be used IN ANY WAY (not to mention in battle) as early as autumn 1941, whereas Russian T-28, t-38 and t-40 were used even after the war, by the army of Finnland for example.
The Finnish captured some of those tanks during the winter war and they liked them so much that they kept them.

[Brenus]

Your answer is irrelevant - the french got their soldiers on a FORTIFIED LINE - no tanks, just infantry and bunkers, with planes far behind the border line.”
Absolutely not. The main units were near the Belgium borders with all the best equipped and trained mechanised units to confront the attack from the Germans as the French and the British were expecting the major offensive through Belgium. Which was initially the OKW plan (Yellow Plan), plan they were obliged to change following a plane accident that provided it to the French…
The Maginot line was suppose to secure the flanks and to protected the main territory from invasion and was at the borders… As the Russian were at the demarcation line in Poland…

“The USSR had way more soldiers than the 3mln I mentioned, but the point is that those unfotunate 3mln who got surrounded by the first german attack (only 1 out of 10 would survive the captivity) were an ASSAULT FORCE - with tanks and airplanes as close to the border as possible” No. There is no evidence of this.
To have an army with tanks and planes doesn’t in any way make this Army an assault force. That makes the army a mobile Army ready to counter manoeuvre an incoming enemy. As in the prepared plan mentioned earlier…
The Anglo-French had more tanks, more planes and more soldiers than the Germans but they were neither the aggressors nor an Assault Force…

“bit farther”: A bit? Brest Litovsk, then Minsk then Smolensk, you call that a bit. On my map, it is roughly 1,000 km…
Distance that, saying passing by, revokes your claim about a destruction at the borders…
Now, where are the Russian Mechanised Army Corps?
1 in Leningrad. (Military Region of)
2 in the Western Military Region
2 in Kiev
1 in Odessa
1 in Transbaikal
1 in Moscow
1 in the Caucasus
1 in Central Asia
and at the beginning of 1941 a 3rd is added in Kiev under Rokosovski.

So not at the borders...

However, these units are far to be at full capacity.
To face the 19 Panzer-Divisionen the Russian deployed 15 000 tanks (967 T34, 508 KV1-2).
On the 13,500 “old” tanks 3 650 are really able to fight. And they are not in units but spread within all the Soviet units… It is still 5,000 against 3,500 Germans, which were not all modern and well equipped…

“T-34 a failure?!?!? The BEST tank in ww2 a failure?
KV a failure? The world's first heavy tank a failure?”
Er, read before. The KV1 was a failure, I never spoke about the T34 as a failure.
And KV 1, yes a failure. Oh yeah, nice armour but too heavy, turret too slow to move, not visibility…

The KV 1 was not the first heavy tank in the world. The Soviet T 35 and the Char B 1 were before it. To be heavy is not enough if your weight trapped you in the mud…

“Nobody else had heavy tanks until late 1942 (Pzkpfw VI Tiger)!!! So KV was a failure compared to what?” You’ve got your answer above…

“so the comparison was irrelevant, you agree?” Fully relevant as you mentioned the seizure of material as proof that Stalin was ready to launch an offensive…

“WHAT? Obstolete Air forces?” You want it, you’ve got it:
Western Military District: 3 Mixed Air Division, 2 Bombers Divisions, 1 Fighter Division
I-153 and MIG 3 (I-153 are biplanes…), I 16, (Rata during the Spanish Civil War) and Assault Planes Il2 (at training) and YAK 1 (for training)
Bombers: AR 2 and SB.

Kiev: I 16. I 153, MIG 3 (only few!!!) etc

Ok, too long to copy (and translate, I surrender…) But yes, the Soviet Air Forces was equipped with obsolete planes…

“BT-7, Bystrohodnyi tank 7, a construction of Walter Christie, a light tank?” Yes, definitively yes. The name gives you a clue. Bistro, fast…

“Tanks drive quickly through the steppes, u know” I do know as I went there with a 4x4 and it took me quite around two weeks to reach Kursk.
I didn’t had to fight and repair. Maintenance is Tanks Units devil…
As a fomer crew member of a Tank I speak from experience...

[Yarema]

Absolutely not. The main units were near the Belgium borders with all the best equipped and trained mechanised units to confront the attack from the Germans as the French and the British were expecting the major offensive through Belgium. Which was initially the OKW plan (Yellow Plan), plan they were obliged to change following a plane accident that provided it to the French…

True, the units of the Allies were in Belgium, but the position they took wasnot a position to attack - tanks were dispersed instead of forming large groups, the infantry was digging in and making trenches to prepare for defense (they were digging in slowly and in a rather clumsy way, but still).
The sheer fact that the Anglo-French had more tanks or planes does not prove much - they had no clue on how to use them (especially the tanks). The Germans, on the countrary, created large assault groups aof Tanks, but you already know that. And when i wrote about a FORTIFIED LINE i meant the maginot line, after all that;s what you mentioned before.

No. There is no evidence of this.
To have an army with tanks and planes doesn’t in any way make this Army an assault force. That makes the army a mobile Army ready to counter manoeuvre an incoming enemy. As in the prepared plan mentioned earlier…

No evidence? The red army was literally hugging the border, the positions of teh red army in the morning of 22 june 1941 are not top secret, please check this out yourself.
"manoeuvre an incoming enemy"? if your men "hug" the border manoevering gets chaotic and difficult right after the attack, which was in fact proved by what happened right after 22 june 1941...
If ouy place your soldiers right on the border, it means you;re preparing to attack, i'm not gonna explain why, you should know yourself.

bit farther?

First off, people from western europe have trouoble in understanding that not the whole world looks like thier place. In 1581/82 the Poles besieged Pskov, and one of the German infantrymen generals fighting for the Poles complained about the fact that the poles look after cavalry more than the infantry, to which general Krzysztof "thunderbolt" Radziwill replied: "this is not northern Italy, nor the Netherlands. Distances are grater and we have to move quickly, so stop your bi_chin."
The same applies to WW2. Tanks manoever quickly in sparsely populated areas, epecially on the steppes (and i didn't say a word about Smolensk!).
So here are the soviet losses on the borders:
1. Soviet troops encircled/destroyed on the obrder:
-Bialystok/Misnk: about 400000 men, 2500 tanks, 1500 aricraft
2. Baltic defensive battle: about 90000 men, more than 1000 tanks, more than 1000 aircraft
3. Battles of Brody and Uman: more than 200000 men, about 600 tanks.
These are just three border battles... and 700 000 men lost!
Now about Kiev (short): the soviets lost about 600000 men, mostly paratroopers. Positioning paratroopers on the border was not a wise thing to do, they were aalmost all in the Ukraine, where the airports were, and from where it was close to Romanian oil fields...
STALIN HAD MOR PARATROOPERS THAN ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD ALTOGETHER... Maybe it was some kind of a national hobby? in a countrty where everything is decided by the governement?

gotta go to sleep, i'll finish on monday

[Azathoth]

Okay, just wanted to say a couple of things.

In 1942-43, USA had 20 millions men at arms…

Only 16-17 million served in the US Armed Forces throughout the entire war, and many of these were not frontline troops.





Apparently, the evidence usually cited for the Soviet pre-emptive strike theory is:
a. Armored forces deployed in exposed front-line positions
b. Creation of numerous airborne corps since the start of WW2
c. Improvement of roads close to the German-Soviet borders
d. Deployment of fighter squadrons near the border
e. Distribution of military maps that included Western Poland and parts of Germany

I also found this map in a book:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

However, there doesn't seem to be any actual written evidence that Stalin was planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany. It's all circumstancial. AFAIK there was nothing like a Soviet Directive 21.

[G. Septimus]

.
Only 16-17 million served in the US Armed Forces throughout the entire war, and many of these were not frontline troops.

Yeah Azatoth's right, even in the Pacific , they maybe only sent some 5 million and in europe 7 million or something. well, the US army was maybe the best at that time, cuz like 1squad(4 men) can destroy like a hole Platoon of Nazi's.

[Azathoth]

well, the US army was maybe the best at that time, cuz like 1squad(4 men) can destroy like a hole Platoon of Nazi's.

Wait, that's a joke, right?

[G. Septimus]

Wait, that's a joke, right?

well, not really. It did happened somewhere during Normandy

[Meneldil]

Yeah Azatoth's right, even in the Pacific , they maybe only sent some 5 million and in europe 7 million or something. well, the US army was maybe the best at that time, cuz like 1squad(4 men) can destroy like a hole Platoon of Nazi's.

Yeah. US soldiers were so much pwnzors. They had auto aim, more life and what not.

[G. Septimus]

Yeah, there badass guys.