Military Review

The myth of "one rifle for three"

185
There is a steady legend that at the beginning of the war our army fought "with one rifle for three." The exact origin of this myth is now hardly possible to find out, however, there is a version that it is associated with the release of the propaganda video "Chapaev with us." If at the moment no one disputes that, then at the beginning of the war the regular units of the Red Army were fully equipped with rifle rifles. weaponsthen the theme “one rifle for three” is still being discussed around the people's militia.


The myth of "one rifle for three"


Here is what the chief curator of the Moscow State Museum of Defense funds, S.E. Sobolev in his article “Small arms of the defenders of the capital in the formation of the national militia of Moscow”, based on archival documents on the degree of manning of all twelve divisions of the Moscow national militia on September 3 1941g - “Provision of rifles, machine guns, light and heavy machine guns, 50-mm mortars , 76-mm divisional guns, 122-mm howitzers in them is 100%. Among the total number of machine guns there are 412 machine guns of the Colt arr. 1915 d. In reality, the logistics situation for the militia divisions looked a little different. According to a report from the 33 Army Headquarters to the Reserve Headquarters (the front about the combat and numerical strength of the army units - six national militia divisions sent no earlier than September 20 1941 34 (text dating). 721 28 rifles instead of the 952 714 machine guns, 612 machine guns 7 796: But there was a lack of the following weapons: automatic rifles there were 21 495, and it was required by the 869 956 staff, light machine guns were 784, instead of the necessary 928, Degtyarev submachine guns, there were 2, instead of 102. st divisions had only 7 anti-aircraft machine gun instead of the 51 and XNUMX XNUMX heavy machine guns instead ».

As can be seen from the above data, there was indeed a shortage of armaments, but it did not concern personal small arms. Moreover, there was even an excess of rifles.
The problem was different - not only modern rifles were issued to the militiamen, but in general everything that could fire was a weapon of the First World, Finnish trophy, foreign weapons, transferred to the Russian Empire in 1914-1917. There was a problem of incompatibility of weapons and ammunition - “With the external similarity of Soviet rifle cartridges arr. 1908 and Finnish, Finnish cartridges were stuck in our machine gun belts and it was not possible to shoot at them. For the same reason, Finnish clips were not suitable for our rifles. Therefore, it was possible to shoot Finnish ammunition only one at a time. ”

Was this situation unique? Here is how Alfred Ressel describes the armament of the people's militia in England in the book “On the Roads of War” - “For the defense of England there were no guns, anti-aircraft artillery, and above all tanks. The light weapons that the army had, with the exception of a light machine gun such as Bren, which was produced under the Czechoslovak license, was outdated, but it was also missing. The militia, consisting of former military and civilians, was armed as necessary with berdanks and pointed iron rods from the fences of the parks. Let's go even historical halberds from museums and family estates as weapons convenient for close combat. ”

Here is what Konstantin Telegin, who was a member of the Military Council of a number of fronts during the war, writes in his book “Wars of Uncounted Versions” - “The Military Council decided to mobilize all weapons resources that could be found in educational institutions, headquarters and rear units .. And the employees of the departments of the Moscow Military District increased their efforts every day in the search for internal reserves. A careful examination of cases on the ground revealed that the reserves are still there, and even considerable ones. The first of these is the artillery bases directly subordinate to the GAU. ” At one of these bases, there was just a significant supply of repaired or requiring repair of foreign small arms that had been in warehouses since the civil war.
According to Telegin, by the end of July, it was possible to adjust the output to
5000 units of repaired weapons per day.

It should be noted that the formed militia units of the “first wave” went not to the front, but to the Mozhaisk line of defense built in the rear, where they were engaged in combat training and construction of fortifications. In September, the national militia divisions were reorganized according to the states of the regular rifle divisions of the Red Army.

As you can see, there were really problems with the armament for the Moscow militia, but in no case does it mean that the militia were thrown into battle unarmed with one rifle for three - all were provided with personal small arms. Perhaps, on other fronts, for example, Leningrad, the situation was worse?
From the data of the book by Alexander Kolesnik “Militia formations of the Russian Federation in the years of the Great Patriotic War” you can make up the following table on the armed forces of the national militia divisions (AED):

Division State strength Nekomplekt Nekomplekt / reserve rifles
1 BOTTOM 14926 2824 -799
2 BOTTOM 11739 3018 + 317
3 BOTTOM 12154 2060 + 1192


As you can see, only one of the three divisions had a shortage of rifles, but it was covered with an even larger shortage of personnel. Surprisingly, exactly the same data is cited in his article “One rifle for three” by Anatoly Tsyganok as proof of the thesis about the great shortage of small arms.

Based on the foregoing, it can be said that there were problems with the armament of the people's militia, but they were not of such a disastrous nature that it was possible to say that the militia were thrown into battle without a weapon "with one rifle for three."
Author:
Originator:
http://statehistory.ru/29/Mif-ob-odnoy-vintovke-na-troikh/
185 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. KUOLEMA
    KUOLEMA 10 October 2015 07: 06 New
    32
    With one rifle for three, liberals and resunoids came up with and the training was not bad, but with the command it was stressful in the first stage
    1. Mikhalychch
      Mikhalychch 10 October 2015 07: 41 New
      -105
      Stalin himself destroyed the commanders, from which there may be good training.
      1. avt
        avt 10 October 2015 09: 02 New
        60
        Quote: Mikhalychch
        Stalin himself destroyed the commanders, from which there may be good training.

        Yeah, right in the morning I got up from the bed and thought - ,, Who should he shoot today? " fool And on such rehabilitated generals as Rokossovsky, Gorbatov and another 30 thousand rehabilitated, restored to the rank and in the party, the cartridges ran out. Or maybe it's about Misha Tukhachevsky? Well, the Congolese commander, who, according to his memoirs, could not establish intelligence and lost three to four weeks the entire Polish army near Warsaw? And to think laziness - where would the Germans be if Misha lost them in 1941 for 4 weeks? I’m reluctant to think and analyze it - it’s easier to flick the liberoid stink, and you say Koryachina, “Stalinists soviet”, prove something with numbers. Well, here on the site it is somewhat simpler - get it all minus.
        1. Mahmut
          Mahmut 10 October 2015 22: 57 New
          +3
          With one rifle for three, liberals and resunoids came up with and the training was not bad, but with the command it was stressful in the first stage

          This myth could not be invented by liberals and resunoids, since it was born in the 50s, and still has not weathered the heads of our old people. He was invented by corrupt "historians" to justify the shame of the defeat of the Red Army at the beginning of the war.
          But one of the first whistleblowers of this myth was Victor Rezun. To the great shame of our court ideologists, but this is true. And henceforth, advice, if you want to effectively expose and destroy your ideological enemy, then take the trouble to find out about him a little more than what is written on his label.
        2. cuzmin.mihail2013
          cuzmin.mihail2013 11 October 2015 00: 13 New
          +3
          Tukhachevsky would not lose time! He would give the order: To contribute as much as possible to the Red Army of the German Army in the fight against communism and the appointment of himself ruler of Russia.
      2. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 10 October 2015 09: 28 New
        36
        is Blucher and Tukhachevsky? Great commanders. One managed at the sight of the infantry of Japan, the second could not conquer the superior army flattering and put under attack the whole country.
        Or are you talking about someone else?
        1. Talgat
          Talgat 10 October 2015 10: 09 New
          31
          Liberasts spread slander against the USSR, allegedly the "great commanders" were destroyed for the sake of the personal power of tyrant Stalin and the repressions of 37 with earlier mixes in a heap - intentionally distorting the truth

          In fact, the Trotskyists simply need to be repressed - until 1939, Stalin and his comrades-in-arms still did not have full power and had to shoot through the surviving Trotskyists

          I am especially (as a Kazakh) glad that Goloshchekin was raised from a hospital bed (he had only a week or months to live due to cancer) and was shot dead! So he and thousands of other executioners

          Thanks to the cleaning of the "nits", our homeland did not receive the "fifth column" in the Second World War and the betrayal of senior officers

          As for me. so no Tukhachevsky is a genius, but the Konevs, the Rokossovsky Zhukovs and others proved in real battles
          1. Nicholas C.
            Nicholas C. 10 October 2015 15: 20 New
            +8
            Quote: Talgat
            I am especially (as a Kazakh) glad that Goloshchekin was taken up from a hospital bed (he had only a week or months to live due to cancer) and was shot dead!


            Shaya Itskovich Goloshchekin is a participant in the ritual execution of the Empire in the person of its people symbolizing: the family of Emperor Nicholas II. As you know, such a thing was not entrusted to anyone anyhow.
          2. Uncle Joe
            Uncle Joe 10 October 2015 23: 56 New
            -11
            Quote: Talgat
            the Trotskyists simply need to be repressed - until 1939, t. Stalin and his associates still did not have all power
            As a person who regularly refers to Stalin and Lenin, I beg you to clarify - what is meant by the Kremlin’s imbibilism that you used about "the lack of full power"?
            1. Talgat
              Talgat 11 October 2015 02: 28 New
              +5
              Sorry, I don’t know what the Kremlin Kremlin imbalance is.

              I suspect that you mean that I sympathize with the Kremlin and the Russian government
              So this, you know, is the official position of my entire country, and the leadership of Kazakhstan and most of the population. Watch out!

              And in reality, a large part of our population supports “Kremlin botanical imbecility” - I, by occupation, communicate a lot with a wide variety of segments of the population - I can confirm

              Putin’s rating in the KZ is generally overwhelming - by the way, not entirely deserved - and I argue with that - my relatives all repeat the same thing - here Putin and his team returned to their homeland the looted by oligarchs in the 12 industries (well, you know defense export, atom, Yukos oil and so on) but he didn’t return the type of NAS — in fact, the NAS kept everything under the “dictate” and started not in 2004, but earlier in 2000 — that is, we overtook the Russian Federation by 4 of the year

              This can be seen by all indicators and graphs, and therefore the Russians began to return, who, inadvertently, hastened to leave for the Russian Federation. T e there is not much difference between NAS and Putin
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 11 October 2015 02: 34 New
                +1
                rather, with caution ...
              2. Uncle Joe
                Uncle Joe 11 October 2015 03: 01 New
                -2
                I don’t know what the Kremlin Kremlin imbecility is.
                Pro-imperious dementia, expressed, among other things, in boiling water writing from flights with Siberian Cranes, from pressing oligarchs to the nail (in fact, reproducing at a rate 2 times the GDP growth rate), and from the fake repeal of the PSA law.

                Quote: Talgat
                So this, you know, the official position of my whole country
                I am not interested in your official position: you called yourself a communist in a brass, so please smile

                I repeat the question: what is the "lack of full power"?
                1. Talgat
                  Talgat 11 October 2015 03: 23 New
                  0
                  The power in the world now belongs to the Fed and the United States, and we are all in opposition - probably everyone understands this now

                  T e "pro-government dementia" is more likely your destiny - the respected liberalist and pro -amerovets "Uncle Joe"

                  Not for you, but for other site visitors - about the lack of full power by Stalin

                  Yes, indeed, until 1937-38, the IVS still struggled for power, trying to plant the last Trotskyists, etc.

                  I read that in 1939, the commander Dybenko ran into the mausoleum during the parade, and from a schA personal harm and quarrel, he hit Stalin on the head

                  Then he calmly served and even took part in the Second World War
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Alf
                    Alf 11 October 2015 09: 14 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Talgat
                    I read that in 1939, the commander Dybenko ran into the mausoleum during the parade, and from a schA personal harm and quarrel, he hit Stalin on the head

                    Schadenko.
        2. Buffalo
          Buffalo 10 October 2015 10: 16 New
          20
          Right. Tukhachevsky is an executioner and a sadist. He gave the order to bomb from airplanes, to fire from artillery and to poison with chlorine the Tambov peasants, who rebelled against excessive exactions and the threat of starvation.
          He shot hostages in villages, placed the population in concentration camps.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 10 October 2015 11: 10 New
            +7
            Quote: Bison
            Right. Tukhachevsky is an executioner and a sadist. He gave the order to bomb from airplanes, to fire from artillery and to poison with chlorine the Tambov peasants, who rebelled against excessive exactions and the threat of starvation.
            He shot hostages in villages, placed the population in concentration camps.


            I read somewhere that Tukhachevsky was a nobleman by birth, but it’s enough to look into his face once and it becomes clear that he is not a nobleman, but a Jew, from here it becomes clear that such hatred of the Russian people and the betrayal of this “nobleman” .. .
            1. tolian
              tolian 10 October 2015 12: 52 New
              +6
              You are observant. Everything says that he is a typical liquid. Both face and amazing ability to survive. He was captured. Long. He returned. Quickly climbed up. He was very distinguished by diligence in executions of "counter". Well, like Zemlyachka, for example, and many others from their midst, who took their souls to revenge and the destruction of the gentiles. The current exaltation to heaven of his "genius" and crying about his "murder." And take an interest in why he was sentenced to death, gentlemen, mestizo-belolentochnye. Right, there is enough documentary literature. There is no time to read? Squealing is easier? Yes, he ran into Stalin. And he saw them well!
              1. tolancop
                tolancop 10 October 2015 19: 20 New
                +5
                Betrayal, IMHO, does not have a nationality ... "liquid" Tukhachevsky or "Rusak" .. what does it change?
          2. allian
            allian 10 October 2015 11: 14 New
            -1
            Quote: Bison
            Right. Tukhachevsky is an executioner and a sadist. He gave the order to bomb from airplanes, to fire from artillery and to poison with chlorine the Tambov peasants, who rebelled against excessive exactions and the threat of starvation.
            He shot hostages in villages, placed the population in concentration camps.

            And did not consult with anyone? Didn’t execute any orders? Was Makhno second?
            Or did he obey the orders of his higher comrades?
            1. avt
              avt 10 October 2015 12: 10 New
              +8
              Quote: allian
              ? Didn’t execute any orders?

              Fulfilled, completely fulfilled the orders of the one who appointed him and who created the whole Red Army and supervised Trotsky.
              1. allian
                allian 10 October 2015 13: 11 New
                -8
                Quote: avt
                he himself carried out the orders of the one who appointed him and who created and supervised the entire Red Army — Trotsky.

                So what? Has appointed Trotsky Tukhachevsky? Or Lenin?
          3. allian
            allian 10 October 2015 11: 14 New
            -3
            Quote: Bison
            Right. Tukhachevsky is an executioner and a sadist. He gave the order to bomb from airplanes, to fire from artillery and to poison with chlorine the Tambov peasants, who rebelled against excessive exactions and the threat of starvation.
            He shot hostages in villages, placed the population in concentration camps.

            And did not consult with anyone? Didn’t execute any orders? Was Makhno second?
            Did he produce ammunition with a chemical agent in army workshops?
            Or did he obey the orders of his higher comrades?
          4. MrK
            MrK 10 October 2015 16: 22 New
            +7
            Agrees bison. I will add.
            "One cannot but agree that the people who destroyed millions of Russian people, such as all of these Tukhachevskys, Uborevichs, Yakirs, Bukharins, in any case deserved the death penalty. Justice demanded this. It doesn’t even matter what they were accused of - all the same, they could not officially be judged for their true crimes against the Russian people. So from a moral point of view, this stage of repression was completely justified - as the restoration of justice and the “Soviet Thermidor".
            Quote from the book, which is now not in my ears: [A. Kurlyandchik - “Cursed SOVIET AUTHORITY” ... on Proza.ru]
            1. Uncle Joe
              Uncle Joe 11 October 2015 00: 40 New
              0
              Quote: mrark
              Quote from the book ...

              One cannot but agree that the people who destroyed millions of Russian people, such as all of these Tukhachevskys, Uborevichs, Yakirs, Bukharins, in any case deserved capital punishment
              And the "destroyed" "millions" of Russian people were a dumb, dumb herd that did not show resistance?

              It seems to me that my first impression was correct, and that your Courland is on a par with Bronstein, whose only "merit" is not the phony destruction of millions, but the descent of the Soviets (including rumors of such destruction).
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 11 October 2015 02: 47 New
                -1
                ... disarmed ...

                you are busy here with discrediting this destruction.

                better about Vendée, that it was necessary, or that it was also a rumor.
          5. Uncle Joe
            Uncle Joe 11 October 2015 00: 33 New
            0
            Quote: Bison
            and poison the Tambov peasants with chlorine
            50 thousand men running through the woods with weapons, now called peasants? wassat
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 11 October 2015 02: 17 New
              0
              OWL was used in villages and not in forests. Not the same opportunities as American aviation in Vietnam.
              Well, who were they - workers? Or maybe raznoshintsy?
              a peasant with a weapon does not cease to be a peasant, if only a hunter.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 11 October 2015 03: 13 New
                  0
                  Tell us more about yourself ... although according to your writings everyone already sees that vi (for) is not a person. laughing
            2. Pissarro
              Pissarro 11 October 2015 06: 59 New
              +1
              Organized in three armies, not just running
        3. Rezident007
          Rezident007 10 October 2015 10: 34 New
          -19
          ShadowCat, all the same it could be so ... But then why did the Red Army retreat in your way to Moscow and the Volga if everything was adjusted with the command staff and weapons?
          1. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 10 October 2015 11: 21 New
            13
            Why did France merge in a month? Why did England merge? But this is lyrics.

            Blitzkrieg’s tactics even in our country paid off at the first stages of the war. What was it like? In delivering a concentrated blow and breaking through the enemy’s defense, and without further entering into battle, advance to the rear capturing / destroying warehouses, command, communications. The same was put before the aircraft, which attacked communication centers and command.
            But a small nuance is the territory. Accustomed to maneuvering on a not very large European territory (take the Moscow region from us - it’s with Germany. I exaggerate but the meaning is clear), they transferred such tactics to the USSR.
            The second nuance is the concentration of troops. Of course, most of the troops focus on particularly important borders, but here's the problem. The USSR and even Russia have the largest land border in the world. And it was necessary to protect not only the Soviet-German one. But also Soviet-Turkish / Japanese (And do not care that Sorge and others telegraphed. There was peace with Germany) / Finnish / Asian.
            But if you look, the army was 7 million with the German (+ satellites) versus 5-6 million with the Soviet.
            The third nuance is geopolitics. Okay, Churchill (but everyone is mortal. And he, too, and Chamberlain will be resurrected), but there is a large US economy that seems to be out of business. Given the ardent love for the Communists in the United States (they kicked off the love of private property), then the likelihood that they will jump to the Axis side give an excuse. A cute reason and fluffy Germany was attacked by the evil USSR. So what had to be done so that it was simply impossible to state (analogy with Ukraine in modern realities).

            As you see, in addition to operational and tactical victories, there are also strategic and geostrategic ones. Germany won the first two points at the start of the war, the third partially (3/4 I will say), the last merged into the net.
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 10 October 2015 11: 46 New
              -12
              Quote: ShadowCat
              then the army was 7 million with the German (+ satellites) versus 5-6 million with the Soviet.

              Exaggerate.
              At the beginning of the war:
              The Germans-taking into account the strategic reserve, the group for operations in the East consisted of 183 divisions and 13 brigades. (Including 19 tank and 14 motorized)
              USSR-in all, there were 303 divisions in the Ground Forces, of which 237 divisions were in the composition of the group for operations in the West (51 of them were tank and 25 were motorized)
              In addition, the USSR had a significant advantage in aircraft and tanks.
              And the human reserve was even greater, meaning the male military-liable population
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 10 October 2015 12: 03 New
                10
                German divisions were more full-fledged and their 183 divisions had more bayonets than our 303 divisions, in addition, add more than a million soldiers of Germany's allies and satellites.
                1. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 10 October 2015 13: 20 New
                  -5
                  Quote: Setrac
                  In addition, add more than a million soldiers to Germany’s allies and satellites.

                  Yes, let's add:
                  On August 10, the State Defense Committee issued a decree on the mobilization of military servicemen born in 1890–1904 and conscripts born in 1922–1923 in the Kirovograd, Mykolayiv, Dnipropetrovsk regions and regions west of Lyudinovo - Bryansk - Sevsk, Oryol region [53]. On August 15, this mobilization was extended to the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic [54], August 20 to the Zaporizhzhya region [55], September 8 to a number of districts of the Oryol and Kursk regions [56], and October 16 to Moscow and the Moscow region [57]. In total, by the end of 1941, over 14 million people had been mobilized [49].
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 10 October 2015 14: 23 New
                    +6
                    of these 14 million, most were mobilized into industry, as well as in Germany
                  2. Alex
                    Alex 11 October 2015 20: 14 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Pilat2009
                    In total, by the end of the 1941 year, over 14 million people [49] were mobilized.

                    And on 22 on June 1941 of the year? You know, don’t juggle with numbers here ...
                2. captain
                  captain 10 October 2015 19: 11 New
                  +7
                  I want to add to the author's article about the lack of weapons. The Germans started the war, according to various sources (in different issues of the History of the Great Patriotic War) from 2800 to 4300 tanks. Self-propelled guns and assault guns. According to various sources, I didn’t take data starting from 1991 from “a large number of obsolete tanks ... and 1881 T-34 and KV-1 tanks” to Zakharov’s book “The initial period of the war”, the number of mechanized corps with average staffing of 50-55% (according to the state in the mechanized corps there was an 1031 tank), the hulls were before the 31 war, that is, on average about 16500 tanks. There were also tanks in the rifle, separate motorized rifle, cavalry and detachment. tank divisions. This I do not take modern literature, only according to Soviet publications. If we discard pseudo-patriotism, it becomes obvious that we were not ready for war. I recommend that you look and compare the biographies of our and German commanders of operational groups. For the sake of example; The commander of the Southwestern Front in 1941 was General Colonel Kirponos, who in 1940 was the division commander. That is, he did not have experience in commanding large associations. Our military historians must admit that war is not only the number of soldiers. tanks. aircraft, etc., it is also the training of command personnel at all levels. Starting with the squad leader, this is also material and technical support and ... many more different factors. If anyone remembers the first Chechen company, then we were in the army at the time, as in 41 at the beginning of the war. I understand that for the sake of party leaders and our marshals, far from all the truth was written, but now it’s worth writing the whole truth. Compare for the sake of interest, the number of our troops captured and German. who were in captivity with us.
                3. Cap.Morgan
                  Cap.Morgan 10 October 2015 21: 42 New
                  -6
                  How is it?
                  In terms of the total number of weapons, we exceeded them at times.
                  Each country decides to have a division, corps or brigade itself. It does not matter. It is important how many trunks per kilometer of the front.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 10 October 2015 21: 59 New
                    -4
                    This is a lie, the USSR was inferior in almost everything except obsolete tanks with bulletproof armor.
              2. Forest
                Forest 10 October 2015 18: 27 New
                +2
                In Germany, the troops were concentrated in the 30-50 km zone from the offensive start line, while our rear units in other corps on 22 in June still hung in Transbaikalia and Kazakhstan.
                1. captain
                  captain 10 October 2015 19: 22 New
                  +7
                  We were very lucky that not all the troops were at the border, and even Moscow would not have been able to defend. I recommend viewing the "History of the Great Patriotic War 1941-45gg" of the last Soviet publication. There are many interesting facts. Especially the spring of 42, events near Kharkov and in the Crimea. The cap-bailing always always ended badly for us. Take an interest, without whose signature, except for the commander and ns, the order was considered invalid (do not think that without the signature of a special officer, you might understand the "directing and cementing" role of our party.
              3. cuzmin.mihail2013
                cuzmin.mihail2013 11 October 2015 00: 53 New
                +2
                You may not know, but the German divisions had wartime staff, the Red Aria was accordingly peaceful. Citing the number of divisions, the authors of some essays do not know that the staff of the Red Army divisions of peacetime is 10291 people, wartime - 14483 people. In addition, quite a few were cropped divisions, numbering less than 6000 people. Wehrmacht division - 16859 people. Count! By the way, they forget about the number of units when calculating losses in the first months of the Second World War.
              4. Shadowcat
                Shadowcat 11 October 2015 08: 27 New
                +2
                Good. According to the state of wartime (i.e. full and complete deployment)
                Considering that the Wehrmacht's infantry division consisted of 16 589 people, we have 3 million 35 thousand 787 people.
                USSR Rifle Division 14 we get 483 million 3 thousand 432 people.

                And here everything seems to be visible, but there is one BUT. Very insignificant in appearance. BUT very much having all the statistics.
                That damn wartime staff. Unfortunately, I haven’t found it yet, but having some knowledge in the economy and having experience in supplying a travel group, I want to note that it’s very difficult to feed such a crowd and supply it with everything, both materially and economically (for example, I eat about 300 rubles a day (without all chic)). Having no reason, what is the point of the state to keep such a large number of parasites? (soldiers in peacetime do not produce anything) and spend money on them? Therefore, it is logical that it is better not to deploy military units in peacetime, in other words, to reduce staff by 60% or more.

                Now, please be kind to calculate the TOTAL for the first days of the war as much as was necessary. And yes, I think, as an adult and smart person, you understand that after signing on the decree on mobilizing people in equipment they don’t immediately appear in the unit.
                P.S. If you have information about the composition of undeveloped parts, I will be glad to read them.

                P.P.S. A small offtopic. Exterminate all who blame our commanders such as avid cavalrymen. The state in the Wehrmacht Infantry Division was 5 thousand horses, versus 3 thousand in the Red Army. These are our horsemen.
                1. Shadowcat
                  Shadowcat 11 October 2015 08: 37 New
                  +1
                  But what I found. According to the state of peacetime, the composition of the infantry division of the USSR was 6 thousand people (!). Afigenchik conquering army to conquer Europe. Such and such are not willing to publish in some places.
                  Of course, this is at the end of the 39th, but I do not think that everything has changed dramatically, but on average there were 10 players in the area.

                  In order not to be unfounded
                  http://fablewar.ru/2011/09/division/
              5. Alex
                Alex 11 October 2015 20: 13 New
                +2
                Quote: Pilat2009
                The Germans — Based on the strategic reserve, the grouping for operations in the East consisted of 183 divisions and 13 brigades. (Including 19 tank and 14 motorized) of the USSR — in all, the Ground Forces had 303 divisions, of which 237 was a group for operations in the West divisions (of which 51 tank and 25 motorized)

                Perfectly! Now, please, in millions of people on both sides. And do not forget the allies.
            2. Rezident007
              Rezident007 10 October 2015 11: 50 New
              +2
              And for what minus gentlemen, comrades, what is the opposite in my question? That's all true, and ShadowCat citizen expressed his opinion. It’s not a matter of geopolitics and strategies, you tell YOUR OPINION about the “boilers”, the mass surrender and inept command of the officers (not all of course), then I know the cases of successful counterattacks, and heroic defenses in all areas, but not so massively and successfully .. And the fact that some officers did not send a senseless attack on a high-rise, wishing to save the lives of soldiers ... You just need to admit that in the initial period of the war the Germans were much more mobile, better trained, battle-hardened in Europe, the Army and the Air Force (about the Navy - ours not only kept it there, but also gave good ones ..) than the Red Army (I repeat - without begging for the many feats of our soldiers and officers). Yes, we didn’t scramble, but retreated .. But the numbers of losses and prisoners speak for themselves .. The command personnel as a whole at all levels were in a panic, bustle, operational, timely orders were not made or were delayed. At the initial stage, the blitzkrieg justified itself by 200% .. Plus, there were a lot of saboteurs in the Western territories, well, the population was half anti-Soviet ... They didn’t take all this into account, although they could .. And it’s not necessary to look for the guilty .. it depends on the person - which he adheres to the ideology, version, and everyone will have their own truth ..
              1. Shadowcat
                Shadowcat 10 October 2015 16: 26 New
                +3
                Quote: Resident007
                But the numbers of losses and prisoners speak for themselves.

                It's hard to argue with you, but here's an interesting nuance about the losses that modern researchers have deduced.
                A bit abstractly admissible there is a front. Where the fighter is injured. He is being taken to a field hospital. There I will operate it and after, depending on the severity of the wound, they will be sent either deep to the rear or the front-line hospital. After which the fighter (according to the instructions) had to go to the distribution point. But often the fighters went straight to their units because there is already a familiar team, from the point they can send anywhere.
                So we look at the reporting. From the front, the foreman writes that "Ivanov left due to injury. Sent to the hospital." At the hospital, they again write that Ivanov was sent there and there. And after that they write the same paper from the rear.
                Considering that all this bureaucracy was often lost, mixed up, and because of those fleeing from the infirmary, we get complete anarchy.
                (I write very approximately because I watched a program with a historian for a long time. I’m not sure, but it seems that in Puchkov’s case in the Intelligence Question they touched on this)
                There are unscrupulous researchers who wrote the losses like this - "Yeah. The front suffered losses of 100 people. We are recording. So 200 people left the hospital. We are recording. 50 people have left the rear. We are recording. Total loss is 450 people." But for some reason they did not take into account that the losses may not be fatal, and they are sent from the hospital not only to the cemetery.
                The same thing with the replenishment of such historians and the missing did.
                This is from our side.
                With the German uncle Goebels so lit that after a heavy battle, the division could grow twice.
                So it’s a little skeptical about some of the numbers. History as a politics is a dirty thing and looks through the lens as desired.
                1. Shadowcat
                  Shadowcat 11 October 2015 17: 37 New
                  0
                  By the way, about the losses. The most common cartridge during World War II was 7.62, or approximately the same caliber (I mean the ratio with the main users - German / Japanese / American), which has excellent breakdown power.
                  Since Vietnam, 5.56 and 5.45 have appeared ()! had a smaller penetration, but at the same time had a greater offset relative to the line of hit on the target.
                  those. the point is that two different calibers do different damage to human tissues. If one simply flies out and maybe the enemy doesn’t even notice, then the second one will writhe not just from the pain shock (as is possible in the first case), but also because the outlet is bleeding very much and (or) is damaged which requires immediate medical intervention.
                  This is so offtopic. No, I really need to start a blog. But who cares about the thoughts of the abnormal?
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 11 October 2015 20: 44 New
                    0
                    Quote: ShadowCat
                    those. the point is that two different calibers do different damage to human tissues.

                    That’s why the phrase “Large-caliber” makes minced meat on the outside, and small in the package.
              2. gladcu2
                gladcu2 10 October 2015 17: 18 New
                +4
                Rezident007

                Guilty still need to be determined. Including the reasons for what happened. That would not step on the same rake twice.

                In view of the beginning of the Khrushchev rule, history has undergone changes, as they say. Therefore, there are many opinions and it is contradictory.

                I would like to know the truth.
            3. allian
              allian 10 October 2015 11: 58 New
              -23
              Quote: ShadowCat
              Why did England merge? But this is lyrics

              Are you sure Britain merged? And who accepted the surrender of Germany? By the way, the French accepted too. From this, the "share" of the USSR decreased from 1/3 to 1/4. But the "great Dzhugashvili" was silent. Because he knew his true place in this "coalition."
              1. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 10 October 2015 13: 15 New
                +3
                Quote: allian
                By the way, the French accepted too.

                And even the Chinese and Dutch
              2. Buffalo
                Buffalo 10 October 2015 17: 44 New
                +4
                Not only Dzhugashvili knew, but also all the heads of the heads of the Union delegations, who is I.V. Stalin.
                In Tehran, the Western Allies agreed not to get up at the entrance of Stalin. But when Stalin entered, they all stood up at the same time!
              3. Shadowcat
                Shadowcat 10 October 2015 18: 35 New
                +3
                Given the heat of passion at the end of the war, it was already tantamount to smoking in a powder warehouse. Given that T. Roosevelt died, and in his place an ardent anti-communist Truman came, and even from above V. Churchill, the actions of I.V. Stalin were understandable.
                If you pull your head and just think - the country has just finished the 5 year war which - the tadams actually fought alone (name me at least one worthy battle that completely changed the situation in the European theater).
                Yes, the USSR as a result turned out to be the most efficient and most experienced army, not to mention its excellent technical equipment, which in most cases wiped the nose of the allies.
                But there is another side - depleted reserves as material resources in the form of resources that were stored before the war, technical (depreciation of the tank, plane and automobile fleet), human (losses were where to get from them) and moral.
                Do you think that it would be better to continue the war, but with the situation in England / USA / Remains of European powers - the USSR - Japan?
              4. Scraptor
                Scraptor 10 October 2015 19: 29 New
                +2
                4 out of 5 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front ...
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 10 October 2015 11: 57 New
            +5
            Because the Third Reich with its allies had a twofold advantage in terms of population, a fourfold advantage in industrial potential.
            1. allian
              allian 10 October 2015 12: 05 New
              -23
              Quote: Setrac
              Because the Third Reich with its allies had a twofold advantage in terms of population, a fourfold advantage in industrial potential.

              Before whom? Before the countries of the "anti-Hitler coalition"? You forget that already in the fall of 1941. The USSR, as an independent unit, ceased to exist. Dzhugashvili leaked it in favor of the Anglo-Saxons. Next, the Axis countries fought against the Allies. And the role of the USSR among the Allies was not to say that it was enviable. Compare the losses of the USSR and other countries of the Coalition.
              1. tolian
                tolian 10 October 2015 13: 04 New
                11
                allian, yours ..... Compare the losses of the USSR and other countries of the Coalition ..... introduces skepticism into yours ... Then the Axis countries fought against the Allies. So argue Bandera, belolentochniki, unfinished Natsik.
                1. allian
                  allian 10 October 2015 13: 19 New
                  -16
                  Quote: tolian
                  Next, the Axis countries fought against the Allies.

                  The USSR had no big losses? Everything happened "little blood and on foreign territory"? Was the contribution to the lives of Coalition member countries the same? Each 1/4, how was Germany divided?
                  If this is not so, then WHY divided into 4? Why didn’t they send the “allies” to hell? Thinking about it? That's it.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 10 October 2015 19: 33 New
                    +1
                    Where is 1/4 and even within the borders of 1937? They shared it like IVS. Europe along the line of division of forces, from which the "allies", after a pause, nevertheless moved back.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. avt
                  avt 10 October 2015 16: 25 New
                  +3
                  Quote: tolian
                  . So argue Bandera, belolentochniki, unfinished Natsik.

                  You don’t understand with whom you are conducting a discussion! ??
                  Quote: tolian
                  happen that already in the fall of 1941. The USSR, as an independent unit, ceased to exist. Dzhugashvili leaked it in favor of the Anglo-Saxons.

                  And there appeared, "non-stop" Ukraine? laughing
                  Quote: allian
                  The USSR had no big losses?

                  There were, the troops were comparable with the German, despite the difference in attitude towards the prisoners, but very large losses among the civilians being destroyed by punishers, Ukrainian and Baltic policemen from Nazis - Hitler’s lackeys were especially atrocious, the Ethonians were noted in the Pskov region as well. SS Khatyn, for example, was burned with people. And Dzhugashvili, the party nickname Stalin at Yalta, the World shared with his allies and set the rules of conduct for decades. Another Chiang Kai-shek endorsed the protocols signed in OUR Crimea.
              2. Foxmara
                Foxmara 10 October 2015 17: 15 New
                +3
                Quote: allian
                Next, the Axis countries fought against the Allies.

                and fought a lot? in the year 39 they declared war and sat in the trenches - powerfully ..
                the British waited for the Germans to start drowning their transports. The Yankees also suffered a lot of losses from submarines and could not turn the tide immediately, and then, using the experience of Tommy. And so, German submarines drowned American ships NEAR the US coast ... After and during the war, all allies recognized the role of the USSR and only with the onset of the cold did the propaganda that you are pushing here.
                1. Shadowcat
                  Shadowcat 11 October 2015 18: 03 New
                  0
                  Yes, if Hitler hadn’t faped on Tommy so that he wouldn’t wash the lion and the unicorn, he would have normally sponsored Britain in the 37-39th Kingsmarin stupidly pressed his paws because their island was stupidly left without resources.
                  Yes. An exiled government, like France, could have shifted to Canada / India, but nevertheless it’s about the capital, it means how to get a peasant on a grand scale on bells.
              3. Setrac
                Setrac 10 October 2015 20: 15 New
                +4
                The participation of other countries of the anti-Hitler coalition was symbolic, so the losses are small. You need to look not at the loss of the USSR with the allies, but who has grinded how many German divisions, and you will immediately realize that the USSR defeated Germany almost all by itself.
            2. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 10 October 2015 15: 04 New
              -4
              Quote: Setrac
              Because the Third Reich with its allies had a twofold advantage in population

              So what? The whole population went to war?
              1. kotvov
                kotvov 11 October 2015 13: 09 New
                +1
                So what? The whole population went to war ?,
                don’t you know how armies are formed? how much can be called up, how much should be in agriculture, how much in industry?
                1. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 11 October 2015 19: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: kotvov
                  look yes fancy, but do not be clever

                  Well, if you're so smart, why are you comparing the population of all of Europe with the USSR and not with the anti-Hitler coalition?
          3. tolian
            tolian 10 October 2015 12: 55 New
            +1
            Resident, you have some misunderstanding with the definition "everything is settled."
          4. Mareman Vasilich
            Mareman Vasilich 10 October 2015 15: 32 New
            +3
            Yes, because in a nutshell this can not be explained. You have to read and study yourself, then you will understand. And to get started, read this http://topwar.ru/31627-strategiya-bet-taktiku-logistika-strategiyu-pochemu-voysk
            a-ne-gotovilis-v-1941-m.html

            Then study I. Pykhalov and B. Yulin, A. Eliseev, E. Prudnikov, study the memoirs of marshals and generals, simple front-line soldiers. Then you will begin to understand, unless of course you are an admirer of rezun, corned beef, Svanidze and Mlechin with Solzhenitsyn.
          5. jktu66
            jktu66 11 October 2015 01: 00 New
            0
            But then why did the Red Army retreat in your way to Moscow and the Volga if everything was adjusted with the command staff and weapons?
            In the Red Army there were catastrophically few 1mv veterans who were hardened in battles who took part in preparing the decisive defeat of the enemy for the spring-summer of 1917. They were to comprehend the events of 1mv and formulate the strategy and tactics of a future war, to form the basis of the senior and senior officers, as it was in the Wehrmacht. Malinowski, when returning in 1919 from France, was not miraculously shot. And how many were deprived of their life, honor, awards, honors, scattered around the world. (There was once an article on the VO about Russian officers who ensured victory in the war for the army of the South American country that sheltered them)
            The Russian army twice, in 1812, and in 1915 did not allow the superior enemy to encircle and destroy their main forces, but in an organized manner retreated and eventually stopped the enemy.
            In the Red Army, the doctrine of war with little blood and on foreign territory turned into a tragedy of 1941-42
          6. Scraptor
            Scraptor 11 October 2015 02: 41 New
            -4
            Because the traitors from the command staff / political departments set up aviation on the first day of the war and then the USSR fought almost without it. Counterattack on the Volga near Stalingrad, and that was in bad weather. Air supremacy was won only by the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 when the evacuated industry produced the right amount of aircraft.
            1. Shadowcat
              Shadowcat 11 October 2015 18: 19 New
              0
              Sir, you are a little wrong. The backwardness of the USSR in aircraft was more evident (tadam) in the Spanish Civil War. New aircraft such as the Yak-1, Mig-3, Pe-3 currents began to enter the troops. The basis was a good-old horse I-16 and others like him. (I'm talking about fighter currents)
              In general, this is how to try to vyzhivatsya on the brow armed with a gun with a gun. (I want to note, for example, that in modern times our pilots fly the good old Su-2x horse not a good life, but only because the Su-3x generation is not enough)

              Quote: Scraptor
              Counterattack on the Volga near Stalingrad, and that was in bad weather.

              So still meteorology e can predict the weather. Housing and communal services so far - "snow fell unexpectedly." But in essence it is rather a work of interconnectedness and saturation of the troops.
              A little later, the unfolding battle in the Kuban (even before Kursk) proved that ours worked it out. Taking experience in the Caucasus (where old Ishachki demolished entire divisions in one gulp of RSs at the tip of army scouts) they demonstrated experience and superiority.
              During the Kursk, new stars came up - for example LaGG
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 11 October 2015 22: 09 New
                +1
                Sir, you are almost completely wrong. 80% of the cars (including almost all new ones) were knocked out at the main airfields on the first day of the war (it is not known who ordered them to be concentrated there from field airfields on Friday), there was another sabotage because of which they became just targets for the Luftwaffe. The Israelis did the same in terms of the removal of aerodrome strips and then the disposal of the Arab Air Force on June 5, 1967.

                Without aircraft, on one side in both cases the war then went somehow wrong ... what

                LaGG flew at the beginning of the war.
                If the Su-34s are replaced by all Su-24s, then this will be a crime on a national scale, because there are tasks that there is no one to solve except the Su-24 and MiG-23/27. For example, a low-altitude air defense breakthrough.

                As the weather was predicted back then, even before the satellites, weather stations were needed for this ... and now they have been ravaged in the Russian Federation, and so far they are recovering slowly, if they are recovering at all ... The Ardennes also began in bad weather.

                By the time of the Kuban air battle, the USSR simply managed to rivet many planes, which allowed them to surpass the Germans there in fighters quantitatively by 3-4 times and arrange them in height separation (Kuban whatnot). They resorted to excessive separation because the Soviet fighters had a lack of thrust-weight ratio ... Having retreated and having lost most of their aces there, the Luftwaffe fell into disrepair due to the fact that there was no one to teach and cover its young in battle. Only after that began the massive raids of the "allies" on Germany, and with a margin of 1 to 10-15.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 11 October 2015 22: 34 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  If the Su-34s are replaced by all Su-24s, then this will be a crime on a national scale, because there are tasks that there is no one to solve except the Su-24 and MiG-23/27. For example, a low-altitude air defense breakthrough.

                  In the future, the Russian Aerospace Forces plan to receive 150-200 aircraft of this type [23] and completely replace them with Su-2020 by 24. [24]

                  And why can't the SU-34 break through an air defense breakthrough at low altitude?

                  Why do MIG-23 break through air defense? MIG-23 is a fighter.
                  Is MIG-27 is in service with the Russian Air Force?
                  Russia Russia - in 1993, due to a change in the political situation and a total lack of funds, a massive write-off of the MiG-27 began, followed by the disbandment of regiments and the delivery of vehicles to storage bases in Lipetsk, Tambov, Steppe, Chebenki, Slavgorod and Taldy Kurgan. Most of the aircraft handed over to the storage bases were in excellent condition, but due to lack of funding and, accordingly, due care, they quickly lost their combat effectiveness. The first Chechen war again aroused interest in this aircraft (chief designer A. A. Popov several times personally went to storage bases to determine the possibility of “reanimation” of the MiG-27, especially the MiG-27K), but “twenty-seventh” from the storage bases in most of them were already unsuitable for flying.

                  Due to the difficult economic situation in 1993 in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, almost all MiG-27s and their modifications were decommissioned, transferred to storage facilities and almost all disposed of.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 12 October 2015 01: 06 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Alf
                    And why can't the SU-34 break through an air defense breakthrough at low altitude?

                    Because it will fall apart, or the pilots will have soft-boiled brains from shaking ...
                    Quote: Alf
                    Why do MIG-23 break through air defense? MIG-23 is a fighter.

                    Then, what else would air defense knock down. For example, accompanied by Su-2/34
                    Quote: Alf
                    Is MIG-27 is in service with the Russian Air Force?

                    it was they who had fussed for a long time ... it was a very good plane. Especially if you can’t compare with SERA, with SEPECAT.
                    1. Shadowcat
                      Shadowcat 12 October 2015 11: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Because it will fall apart, or the pilots will have soft-boiled brains from shaking ...

                      umm ... either I or something I do not understand. Why does one fall apart and the other not?
                      And I can’t understand your addiction to difficult-to-operate machines (MiG-23 and Su-24 have a variable wing sweep)
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 12 October 2015 11: 48 New
                        0
                        You don’t understand the roofing felts ... Because the Su-34 or F-15E or FA-18 will greatly shake. You can see on recent flights over the Su-24 freeways what sweep their wing is on.
                        In addition to the Su-24 and MiG-23, many more aircraft have variable sweep: F-14, Tornado, F-111, B-1 (also a low-altitude breakthrough), Tu-22M3, Tu-160.
                      2. Shadowcat
                        Shadowcat 12 October 2015 14: 22 New
                        0
                        umm ... as simple as I know, a variable sweep is needed for more lift and, as a result, less take-off for take-off.
                        In addition, why perform such a complicated and dangerous move if it is cheaper and easier to take and work out the X-31P (D / K) and the air defense stops working, and it becomes calmer to fly?
                        In addition, at low altitudes there is an opportunity to run into the Stingers and the like, not to mention the simple problems of the terrain.
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 12 October 2015 14: 36 New
                        0
                        It is a lot of what is needed on a multi-mode aircraft. So just with a larger wingspan, the shatter more shakes.

                        Not easier. There’s a kindergarten right ... What if some previously unknown air defense from an ambush starts to work and launch rockets?
                        At low altitude, the plane is both invisible to them and generally is an element of surprise.
                        Even over the freeways, this maneuver is practiced. The shooter with MANPADS does not have time to aim, and the relay is dispensed with the help of a computer system for following it. Around the same time, flying at extremely low altitude.
                      4. Shadowcat
                        Shadowcat 12 October 2015 16: 36 New
                        +1
                        You made me dig deep.

                        One of the main combat modes of the Su-34 flight will be a low-speed high-speed throw following the terrain. However, an airplane created on the basis of a fighter air glider fighter and having a wing with a relatively low specific load (albeit slightly larger than that of the lighter Su-27) will be unduly influenced by air vibrations, a "chatter" caused by the unstable state of air masses in the surface layer. This can affect the physical ability of the crew to perform a long low-altitude flight, and in some cases lead to an emergency (for these reasons, in particular, the duration of the low-altitude flight section of the American strike aircraft McDonnell-Douglas F-15E “Strike Eagle”, also created based on an air combat fighter and equipped with a terrain following system). On the Su-34, the problem of “comfort” at low altitude flight was solved by using an automatic damping system for aircraft oscillations in the pitch plane (such equipment was installed only on the Rockwell B-1B American strategic bomber).
                      5. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 12 October 2015 17: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: ShadowCat
                        the problem of “comfort” of low-altitude flight was resolved through the use of an automatic damping system for aircraft oscillations in the pitch plane (such equipment was installed only on the Rockwell V-1V strategic bomber).

                        Su-27 unstable aircraft, active pitch system on it by default.
                        Shakes in all planes.
                        This is generally a hit in turbulence. yes
                      6. Shadowcat
                        Shadowcat 13 October 2015 00: 59 New
                        0
                        Who is arguing? This was eliminated in the new generation.
                      7. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 13 October 2015 01: 05 New
                        0
                        This is not a new generation, and without constant sweep it cannot be eliminated.
                      8. Shadowcat
                        Shadowcat 13 October 2015 06: 53 New
                        0
                        What is your evidence?
                      9. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 13 October 2015 07: 09 New
                        0
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNa7IqoWkbQ
                        bully
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 13 October 2015 03: 34 New
                    0
                    or you need a small rhombic wing like on the RCC or on Starfighter ...
        4. Scraptor
          Scraptor 13 October 2015 03: 37 New
          0
          Su-17/22 more ...
    2. Alf
      Alf 12 October 2015 17: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Scraptor
      Quote: Alf
      And why can't the SU-34 break through an air defense breakthrough at low altitude?
      Because it will fall apart, or the pilots will have soft-boiled brains from shaking ...

      But what is the thickness of the SU-24 sheathing thicker than that of the SU-34?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 12 October 2015 17: 48 New
        0
        The Su-34 wing is not folding.
      2. Alf
        Alf 13 October 2015 22: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        The Su-34 wing is not folding.

        Not “folding,” but “variable sweep.” If the wing has developed, then this scribe already needs to think not about a breakthrough, but as if to push the catapult faster.
        The fixed wing has greater strength than with variable sweep. It is for this reason that Grumman F-14 Tomket and MIG-23 first had problems with overloading.
      3. Scraptor
        Scraptor 13 October 2015 23: 13 New
        0
        Ordinary planes used to land with folded (F-4) or with generally falling off (F-15).
        Do decker helicopters have folding blades?

        There is almost no difference in strength, there is a slight weighting, which justifies itself for multi-mode.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 12 October 2015 18: 05 New
    0
    phew ... Sori that hesitated with an answer, but let's get started.
    Quote: Scraptor
    were knocked out at the main airfields on the first day of the war (it is not known who gave the order to concentrate them there from field airfields

    Excuse me, where should the border cover aircraft be located? Definitely not in Siberia, but at a distance of the combat radius of use, which was not very large.
    Focused on airfields - so not the harvesters to concentrate them in the field. There weren’t enough airfields, because they weren’t bloopers and were ready to build.

    Concerning concentration - there was a logical order. Lead troops on alert. This is i.e. sit / stand / sleep, but be prepared to grab a gun and run on command.
    Given that they first attacked (by the way, building a radar is even more expensive and harder than an airfield), and then they made a note to the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is logical that the order was given later than it should and as a result of the loss.

    Quote: Scraptor
    The Ardennes also began in bad weather.

    Given the advantages of the Allies over the Luftwaffe, it was quite logical for the Wehrmacht to act this way. Given that the Shermans simply could not oppose the Panthers and the Tigers, this is a very logical and reasonable action by the army that used its advantage

    Seamlessly move on to the Kuban.
    Being unbelievers let's go easy. Add the number of aircraft according to both sides and divide by two.
    Total: 1275 aircraft (USSR) - 900 aircraft (Germany)
    It is a normal ratio for the advancing / defending, given the cover of a pair of anti-aircraft regiments from the defense.
    I won’t talk about losses - If you believe the German asses, then there everyone defeated the Soviet fleet several times.
    Players had (see only fighters) (in parentheses I will try to indicate the thrust-weight ratio for those I found): USSR: Yak-1 (.24), Yak-1B (.31), La-5 (0,53), LaGG-3 , P-39, P-40, Yak-7b (.33), Splitfier Mk V; (Given that the rather old Yak-1 is compared and they say that the performance characteristics were quite comparable with 109 further I'm too lazy)
    Germany: Bf.109G (.21), Bf.110G (.16)
    By the way, because of the difference in the types of planes, it immediately seems that they "filled up with bodies," “filled up with airplanes”, but I would like to note the problems of SUPPLY. Each aircraft has a motor resource, and they also have the ability to require fuel and lubricants (and if the Soviet ones needed one, then the foreign ones needed others), as well as the need for spare parts for field repairs (strange thing, they shoot at planes) which gave rise to a logical suggest incredible hemorrhoids and headaches for the rear and suppliers.
    Looking at the thrust-to-weight ratio of ours, we can speak further on the current for armament and decoration.
    But looking at La-5, talking further is pointless.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 October 2015 18: 49 New
      0
      Quote: ShadowCat
      Excuse me, where should the border cover aircraft be located?

      at a large number of field airfields and not at major bases. then the aircraft was all unpaved, the ice rink rolled off the field - that’s all to “build”.
      there was a false order on the advanced units to concentrate the aircraft back, other forms of sabotage - such as the dissolution of pilots and technicians on them for the weekend, the sending of anti-aircraft guns covering the airfields to training grounds, the removal of weapons and even engines from aircraft ...

      In the Kuban there was an advantage of 3 or 4 to 1, which was why it was possible to break with the help of wide separation in height only this way, it became clear from a comparison of the power of the motors (by the way, licensed, but pre-war). The Germans were 1,5 times more powerful even without short-term forcing.
      For La-5, continue by comparing the number of trunks on it and on the FW-190 ...
      According to the Yak-1/3 so that it sometimes fell apart from a rifle caliber bullet and one of the machine guns was removed.
      Aerocobra did not fly well on verticals (it’s an attack aircraft, and even as such it didn’t make the USAF / USN American), Spitfire is a high-altitude driver, where Germans usually did not fly on the eastern front.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 13 October 2015 00: 53 New
        0
        Oh holy hedgehogs! You at least provide links! Where do you get this from?

        According to the same data that I brought the difference only one and a half times, and separation was achieved just because of the hodgepodge of different models.

        In addition, comparing La-5 and Fock is incorrect ... It is in this battle because Foki were in the modification of the A5, or attack aircraft. Here it is more correct to compare with the IL-2. Which, too, if it enters an enemy’s plane and works ...
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 13 October 2015 01: 14 New
          0
          What exactly?

          The difference in engine power is one and a half times, separation can be done on one or two types as the Germans had.

          What is not with Aerocobra? And the IL-2 in the version of the fighter was? Why does a piston attack aircraft need “advanced oxygen cabin equipment” (Wikipedia)? It didn’t even exist on all destroyers then, and besides the A5 then there were both other attack aircraft and other modifications of the FW-190. Think ...
        2. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 13 October 2015 07: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Scraptor
          What exactly?

          About airplanes, about motors. About Yaks who flew and shot down without machine guns, about how they fell apart.

          Quote: Scraptor
          separation can also be done on one or two types, as was the case with the Germans.

          Why then did not?

          Quote: Scraptor
          Why does a piston attack aircraft need “advanced oxygen cabin equipment” (Wikipedia)?

          And did it help them?

          Quote: Scraptor
          and besides the A5 then there were both other attack aircraft and other modifications of the FW-190.

          According to the Germans, the assault version was delivered. The fact that they could use it as a fighter is what their right says.
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 13 October 2015 07: 21 New
          0
          You can start with Wikipedia. Almost everything about engines, the removal of weapons is there, about super-light spruce yaks, you may have to ask Google ...

          Because it was not enough for this aircraft. They were not even enough in Stalingrad. Therefore, the counteroffensive began in bad weather (like German in the Ardennes), and not in good weather.

          Of course. This is an attack fighter.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 10 October 2015 14: 07 New
    +1
    What kind of "commanders" are these? Which people during the civil gas and mustard gas, and then plotted against the people arranged? It, dear comrade, as it sounds, so it responds.
  • kot stepan
    kot stepan 10 October 2015 22: 11 New
    0
    It was, of course. But, not so simple
    http://warspot.ru/4087-kakoy-byla-krasnaya-armiya-do-repressiy-1937-goda
  • cuzmin.mihail2013
    cuzmin.mihail2013 11 October 2015 00: 04 New
    0
    Stalin destroyed the traitors! Unfortunately, by the beginning of the war, not all (Pavlov, etc.). Rare exceptions (Rokosovsky and others). But, these errors have been fixed.
  • PPL
    PPL 10 October 2015 08: 17 New
    +8
    Quote: KUOLEMA
    With one rifle for three, liberals and resunoids came up with and the training was not bad, but with the command it was stressful in the first stage

    Yes, the training was not bad, but the rapid advance of the Wehrmacht brought this training practically to nothing. Problems with the supply of the Red Army arose almost immediately after the outbreak of war, because a huge number of warehouses were left during the retreat. The troops lacked a lot, including weapons and ammunition! It was not for nothing that a cry was thrown - we will help the Red Army. It was possible to partially alleviate the situation only in 1942; normal supply began in 1943.
    Refer to the orders of the NCO (People’s Commissariat of Defense) of that time.
    And don't forget that the best defense against logic is ignorance.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Senior manager
    Senior manager 10 October 2015 09: 22 New
    0
    A well-known participant in the war who was captured near Vyazma talked about the queues for rifles. I have no reason not to trust his words. And he did not know the words of the liberal-resunoid
    1. PROHOJIY
      PROHOJIY 10 October 2015 13: 12 New
      +6
      In principle, it is possible. But what does this mean? In my opinion, only that in this particular unit in this sector of the front there were problems with the supply. But the theme is that "one rifle for three" is elevated to the rank of a systemic phenomenon.
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 10 October 2015 16: 16 New
      +3
      Quote: St. Propulsion
      A well-known participant in the war who was captured near Vyazma talked about the queues for rifles. I have no reason not to trust his words. And he did not know the words of the liberal-resunoid

      They fed me in the army for slaughter, drove a friend to an ulcer - according to him, they don’t feed me in the army, I didn’t have enough from my gobbling here, but someone didn’t have enough ....
  • tolian
    tolian 10 October 2015 12: 39 New
    +5
    These skaeks about one rifle for three with foam through rotten teeth are puked by chemists-historians like Svanidzey. junalists like Venediktov’s type or fighters for inverters like Slavinsky-Alekseevs.
  • van zai
    van zai 10 October 2015 16: 17 New
    +3
    I don’t know who you call Resunoids, but Rezun was the one who successfully, persistently and systematically refuted the myth of “one rifle for three”.
  • derik1970
    derik1970 10 October 2015 17: 14 New
    -6
    you were there? were at the front? fought? liberals have you come up with everything? ... I have a great-grandfather from the Nazi concentration camp returned home in 1945, Thank God he still lived after captivity. I heard from him that there used to be one rifle for three or even not at all ... sit here to assent ... another question, who are you or the liberals rewriting the story ... take off the pink glasses ... the war is hard, dirty work, there were a lot of things, unfortunately there are a lot of similar opuses such as expert analysis ... not everything was written in the documents .. .
  • Predator
    Predator 10 October 2015 19: 36 New
    +6
    Why did the liberals come up with ?! They simply inflated certain facts that were real. And one rifle for three it was still gorgeous. So, not a single engineering and construction battalion ZapVO, KOVO and SZOVO had weapons (except for the commanders of mouth-TT or Nagan), the military contingent did not have weapons from 22.06/10.07.1941/XNUMX sent to replenish divisions (must be armed upon arrival). The numbering divisions formed by mobilization did not have enough weapons (there is a number, but divisions, as there is no real force) and the mobile depots remained on territory already captured by the Germans. And the rest is just a ... well and provocation.
    And at the expense of troop training, it was at the level of both ordinary ranks and command (excluding top command personnel). Everything would be so bad, then there would be the Reich instead of the Russian Federation, and the liberals would become tolerant .... But we won and everything is said.
  • Snow
    Snow 13 October 2015 09: 29 New
    0
    My great-grandfather was captured by the Germans near Staraya Russa, telling what they had 1 rifle and 7 rounds for two. For some reason, I believe in great-grandfather.
    See now fashionable "destroy myths" what has become? If, for example, “Stalin’s bloodiness” really resembles a myth, then by sorry about the rifles !! Of course it's nice to know that "not everything was so bad," but alas, THIS IS NOT A TOTAL MYTH
  • rohl
    rohl 21 October 2015 03: 31 New
    -1
    Ahaha. Rezun just refuted this myth =) =) you are so funny. A poorly educated and template-minded person.
  • Hubun
    Hubun 10 October 2015 07: 07 New
    +7
    Exactly, a lie. Liars to responsibility
    1. Mikhalychch
      Mikhalychch 10 October 2015 07: 48 New
      -37
      And you fought in those years? .. You and Stalin had a great commander, but he simply shot unnecessary ones. And Voroshilov allowed the Nazis to surround Leningrad, thinking that they would flee when an avalanche of horsemen with drafts would go to tanks, even for himself Stalin removed him from the command of the army.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 10 October 2015 09: 30 New
        +3
        Well, you certainly are a contemporary of those times. Lend the crap of time, huh?
      2. avt
        avt 10 October 2015 09: 35 New
        16
        Quote: Mikhalychch
        You and Stalin had a great commander, but he simply shot unnecessary ones. And Voroshilov allowed the fascists to surround Leningrad, thinking that they would flee when the avalanche of cavalry with sabers went to tanks, even Stalin himself removed him from the army command.

        Hey, how many cavalrymen were there among the tank generals in the Wehrmacht? And after how long, France, surrendered, without repression with the victorious marshals of the First World and Allied British Army, packed with modern equipment, surrendered? And where in the same period of time the Red Army stood and did Stalin capitulate? Did the allies of the commanders change in case of failure? But did Hitler change their commanders in case of failure? Manstein, for example, Guderian at 41m, or different von Bokov? whether it’s a lot to spoil only domestic history according to the precepts of “the echo of Moscow? Well, I congratulate you - the echo really comes from the real events that have occurred. That’s why the liberal co-admirers delight me, along with the banderuli raguli, because it’s a complete lack of desire to find out at least something specific for broadening horizons. laughing They are in full confidence that they were already born with sacred knowledge of everything and to their fragmentary, not supported by NONE fact confirmed nonsense, not just OBLIGED to listen - to catch every word on the fly! laughing And they are terribly insulted to hysteria if they are not perceived as oracles.
        1. allian
          allian 10 October 2015 11: 51 New
          -12
          Quote: avt
          And after how long, France, surrendered, without repression with the victorious marshals of the First World and Allied British Army, packed with modern equipment, surrendered?

          France did not give up, France surrendered. Moreover, it is completely thought out and realized. The high French military command surrendered. Which refused to shed the blood of the French for the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. It was a very difficult and responsible political decision. But among the French, people capable of accepting him were found.
          Quote: avt
          And where in the same period of time the Red Army stood and did Stalin capitulate?

          Of course, capitulated. He joined the "anti-Hitler coalition." And that was surrender. The Soviet Union in this coalition paid "cannon fodder". In addition, he claimed only 1/4 of the post-war bonuses. True surrender. Only before the Anglo-Saxons. Did it make it any easier for you? More pleasant?
          Quote: avt
          But Hitler did not change his commanders upon failure? Manstein, for example, Guderian at 41m, or different von Bokov?

          You do not compare how Guderian and von Bock and others set up Hitler, but like Voroshilov. Voroshilov did not substitute at all, so he slightly showed incompetence. And the German "commanders" framed Hitler specifically. Actually, it is they who are the main "creators of the victory" of the USSR over Germany. The main participants in this event.
          1. avt
            avt 10 October 2015 12: 25 New
            10
            Quote: allian
            France did not give up, France surrendered.

            Let me guess - according to new researches, the “historians” handed over the negotiations that were signed off with England and France that sent the delegation WITHOUT LEGAL LAW SIGNING ANY DOCUMENTS, “blood tyrant” Stalin, who signed the non-aggression pact exactly the same as the Poles signed Hitler, with Ribentropp, and his “assistant”, “horse marshal” —the representative of the USSR at those negotiations Voroshilov. laughing
            Quote: allian
            m from this somehow it became easier? More pleasant?

            Personally, it’s not that easier for me - I HAPPY that as a result of such a “surrender”, I just stayed LIVING and fell under the plan of “Ost”, my parents were then children and my bow to all the soldiers of the Red Army who defended the USSR, which lasted until 1991 until the communist elite “exchanged their birthright” - to decide the fate of the World for “lentil soup” - personal dollar welfare. And I am ashamed of their memory that we did not save their entire heritage.
            Quote: allian
            . And the German "commanders" framed Hitler specifically.

            The Wehrmacht general and Rommel in particular, really set Hitler ONCE - giving the Allies the opportunity to land in Normandy and turn around. What the Angles were quite openly broadcasting in the open press and made a good film on the Air Force, “What happened to Rommel.” A fairly objective film.
            Quote: allian
            it is they who are the main "creators of the victory" of the USSR over Germany.

            Yah !!!!!! But what about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Bandera personally! ???? laughing Well, which still holds back the Mongol-Tatar-Moskovian hordes ??? laughing laughing
            1. allian
              allian 10 October 2015 13: 35 New
              -8
              Quote: avt

              I see you are a big fan of writing all sorts of nonsense. Which refute even somehow inconvenient, so they are obvious. For example, even the fact that the German troops in France was commanded not by Rommel, but by Rundstedt.
              I won’t even comment on the other nonsense.
              1. Nehist
                Nehist 10 October 2015 14: 33 New
                +2
                Who told you that Rundstedt? Initially, Rommel was the commander.
                1. allian
                  allian 10 October 2015 15: 31 New
                  0
                  Quote: Nehist
                  Who told you that Rundstedt?

                  In March 1942, Hitler returned von Rundstedt to the service and again appointed him commander of the occupying forces in the West. Learn the story.
                2. allian
                  allian 10 October 2015 15: 31 New
                  0
                  Quote: Nehist
                  Who told you that Rundstedt?

                  In March 1942, Hitler returned von Rundstedt to the service and again appointed him commander of the occupying forces in the West. Learn the story.
              2. avt
                avt 10 October 2015 15: 52 New
                +1
                Quote: allian
                I see you are a big fan of writing all sorts of nonsense. Which refute even somehow inconvenient, so they are obvious.

                laughing I recognize Svidomo as a pid mask of the intelligentsia that does not go into specific details. Yes, I obeyed, but it was Rommel, whom Rommel was sent to France at the end of November 1943. On December 31, 1943, he received army group “B” under his command, and although he was directly subordinate to Field Marshal von Runstedt, Rommel was responsible for the vast territory from Holland to Bordeaux and organized coastal defense against the expected invasion of the Allied forces. He was also appointed Inspector General, and the Atlantic Wall was part of his field of activity. In preparing Western Europe for defense, Rommel developed special anti-landing and anti-landing barriers called the "Rommel-Spargel" (Rommel's Asparagus), along with many other structures. So it was Rommel who was directly responsible for the coastal defense, and it was he who was forced to shoot himself under threat to the life of the family.
          2. Nehist
            Nehist 10 October 2015 14: 31 New
            +2
            I have not read more epic nonsense! Dear, at least read the documents.
            1. allian
              allian 10 October 2015 15: 29 New
              -6
              Quote: Nehist
              I have not read more epic nonsense! Dear, at least read the documents.

              We have different documents. "I do not consider the agitation materials of the Agitation and Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee documents.
              1. avt
                avt 10 October 2015 15: 59 New
                +2
                Quote: allian
                We have different documents. "

                Yeah, like the story of Ukraine with the construction of the pyramids.
                Quote: allian
                I do not consider the agitation materials of the Agitation and Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee documents.

                Well, judging by the comments, they began to compose themselves, but about the German generals and the Barbarossa plan, it’s just like ykrov’s liberation struggle against the Germans of the SS division Galichina and the police under the leadership of the SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Shukhevich. laughing There are in Russia the same comrades-in-arms according to whom Vlasov made his way to Leningrad at the head of the second shock to organize resistance to Stalin, but did not grow together and he went to the Germans - Gavrila Popov and Igor Chubais, here start referring to them and take over the experience. for such a revolt at the eurodome? The Angles said Rommel betrayed - all-eee! No evidence for people like you not a treba!
            2. The comment was deleted.
          3. MrK
            MrK 10 October 2015 16: 49 New
            +3
            Quote: allian
            The high French military command surrendered. Which refused to shed the blood of the French for the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. It was a very difficult and responsible political decision. But among the French, people capable of accepting him were found.


            France, for example, did not carry out Stalinist purges. Result? The country collapsed overnight. And not only because the army fought mediocre and sluggish (although this can not be discounted). In France, the damned cloud of “werewolves” acted with impunity. Like the former communist leader Dorio, after the occupation he appeared in the SS form, like the socialist Dae, who became one of the main pro-Hitler figures.
            Here is what a prominent French journalist Henri Simon wrote: “Sabotage was not only the work of Hitler agents. It involved a large part of the business world, as well as senior officials from among the civilian and military authorities ... France was not defeated by Hitler. It was destroyed from the inside by the “fifth column”, which possessed the most influential ties in the government, in business circles, in the state apparatus and in the army"[Andre Simon" I ACCUSE! "Http://www.telenir.net/istorija/o_teh_kto_predal_franciyu/p2.php].
            QUOTE SAME FROM THE BOOK: [KURLYANDCHIK A.– “THE CURSED SOVIET AUTHORITY” ... ON PROSA.RU]
        2. allian
          allian 10 October 2015 11: 51 New
          -10
          Quote: avt
          And after how long, France, surrendered, without repression with the victorious marshals of the First World and Allied British Army, packed with modern equipment, surrendered?

          France did not give up, France surrendered. Moreover, it is completely thought out and realized. The high French military command surrendered. Which refused to shed the blood of the French for the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. It was a very difficult and responsible political decision. But among the French, people capable of accepting him were found.
          Quote: avt
          And where in the same period of time the Red Army stood and did Stalin capitulate?

          Of course, capitulated. He joined the "anti-Hitler coalition." And that was surrender. The Soviet Union in this coalition paid "cannon fodder". In addition, he claimed only 1/4 of the post-war bonuses. True surrender. Only before the Anglo-Saxons. Did it make it any easier for you? More pleasant?
          Quote: avt
          But Hitler did not change his commanders upon failure? Manstein, for example, Guderian at 41m, or different von Bokov?

          You do not compare how Guderian and von Bock and others set up Hitler, but like Voroshilov. Voroshilov did not substitute at all, so he slightly showed incompetence. And the German "commanders" framed Hitler specifically. Actually, it is they who are the main "creators of the victory" of the USSR over Germany. The main participants in this event.
          1. Turkir
            Turkir 10 October 2015 13: 55 New
            +6
            And the German "commanders" framed Hitler specifically. Actually, it is they who are the main "creators of the victory" of the USSR over Germany. The main participants in this event.

            You are probably a fan of the literary fantasy genre.
            1. allian
              allian 10 October 2015 14: 40 New
              -7
              Quote: Turkir
              You are probably a fan of the literary fantasy genre.

              No, I'm just interested in history. Not stupid articles I read, but interested. And I can definitely tell you that if the German generals had not explicitly and arbitrarily refused the Barbaross plan, then most likely in September 1941 they would go to the Northern Dvina-Volga line (line AA). As envisaged by this plan. And the question of the threat from the east for the Germans would be removed. Further, they would provide an opportunity for Dzhugashvili to "build socialism" and shoot "enemies of the people" east of this line. Then in the summer of 1942. most likely, an amphibious operation in Britain would follow. But how successful is unknown.
              1. MrK
                MrK 10 October 2015 17: 06 New
                +7
                I agree Turkir. I will supplement it.
                The programs on Echo, the books and articles of Solonin, Latynina, Rezun - make me think that I am sitting in a country defeated by Hitler and watching a movie created by Goebbels propaganda.
                That is, after all, what actually turned out to be a victory in the war - a victory of the criminal regime, which is no better than the fascist one. But even worse, in such books our people are shown to be able to be only a victim who does not know how to fend for themselves. That the enemy is the Nazis and the CPSU (b). And they won despite the party, i.e. in the struggle with the fascists and with her, and only because of the fear of being imprisoned.

                But most importantly, the article glorifies humility, inability to defend oneself. This is very scary, for we are now entering an era when we will urgently need the ability to defend ourselves. Our people have always had this ability, and such articles and books deny it.

                But it is not Stalin who is afraid of them, but we Russians when we become ourselves. Stalin isn’t watered with shit ... and corned beef, traitors - rezuns, bitch ... and - Latins and other Russophobes. What to Stalin before their slops? Who are they and who is Stalin? This is not even funny ... Slandering Stalin, sorry for the rude, but exact word, they "lower" our Russian (Soviet) ancestors, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but THROUGH THIS AND US.

                They, today, convince us - our ancestors were not the victors of Europe, they were not !!! They were Stalin's slaves. And they were supposed to be slaves of the Germans or Jews, but those under Stalin did not break off.
                Well, all these Russophobes is a mixture of slops of people who have absorbed the “best” qualities of the first two oldest professions.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 10 October 2015 07: 29 New
    +5
    Why the facts? Let's shoot about these Russians the film "Enemy at the Gates" and show them to future generations how their great-grandfathers fought.
    1. PROHOJIY
      PROHOJIY 10 October 2015 10: 21 New
      +8
      More than once communicated with the Stalingraders. Their reaction to this film is swearing (from restrained to very furious). About problems and troubles told a lot of different things. But such a thing as in the film, so that no one would tell the rifle to one and the only clip to the other. Why something, and provided weapons.
  • timyr
    timyr 10 October 2015 07: 33 New
    +8
    This myth comes from Tsarist Russia. While the Russian army was advancing, there were enough weapons, when the rifles began to retreat, it was not enough. Then rifles of Mondragon, Arisak, Mauser and Manlicher from Latin America came to Russia. The shortage of rifles amounted to 1915 rifles at the end of 1115000. There was a telegram from the October 8 stake that was supposed to equip the soldiers with axes on a long pole. Thank God they refused.
    1. kvs207
      kvs207 10 October 2015 11: 32 New
      +2
      I won’t say about the myth, but the fact that the tsarist army lacked weapons, and, literally in all respects, is for sure. You can read about it, Ignatiev.
      The shortage of small arms from the Red Army at the beginning of the war is understandable, they wrote about this above, but I do not think that this was the rule.
  • Kaiten
    Kaiten 10 October 2015 07: 37 New
    -26
    I believe more in my grandfather, who left for the Moscow militia in 41, than this propaganda. Back in 75, he told my father how they, almost unarmed, were forced to attack Moscow and pick up weapons from soldiers who had been killed before. And after the attack, the Andons came from headquarters and were forced to surrender the selected weapons.
    1. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 10 October 2015 09: 41 New
      16
      Quote: Kaiten
      Back in 75, he told my father how they, almost unarmed, were forced to attack Moscow and pick up weapons from soldiers who had been killed before.

      After Atalef, the Professor and others, I’m already afraid to comment on the "star-striped". It really pains the reluctance to get involved in the city of Nov. .. mid..ach.

      Who are you Kaiten, promised that the war is fun, good and plenty? Hitler in the 39th, when he promised every German a sandwich for breakfast? Reagan in the 83rd when the US tore Grenada? Or Bush, when he sent a soldier for 33 stars to Iraq and Afghanistan?

      War is not Egyptians bombing the desert on the only road when they foolishly with flags and convoys set off across the desert to fight your new homeland. There is always something missing in the war, and you have to think for yourself where to get it. And, even more so, in such a war in which your grandfather fought. And mine, by the way, too. Only not near Moscow, but in besieged Leningrad. AND, I am sure he told this to your father not with that nasty intonation with which today's star-striped of all stripes mock the fact that in the 41st there were not enough rifles. "Ahhh, such and such commies didn’t even give rifles to people. Specially, from the natural bloodthirstiness of the poor Jews they sent for slaughter ..." So what? No, not so. TA war was a war for the survival of the state, for the destruction of either one country or another. And, I think, there is no need to remind how many enterprises remain in the occupied territory. Therefore, Of course, no one was going to apologize to the unarmed militia, but if you didn’t have enough weapons, get it in battle, use what is at hand. Even a pencil can be a deadly weapon. Yes, with bare hands to strangle at least one enemy - and that is a contribution to the Victory. They taught us like that ...

      Probably, changing their homeland like smelly socks (removed, spat, threw out) this is not understood. In your new homeland is jo ... ne warmer? Well, a flag in your hands, a drum around your neck ... Tell everyone about the great state of Israel and do not spread dirt on your former homeland or your grandfather ...
      1. Kaiten
        Kaiten 10 October 2015 09: 52 New
        -17
        We’ll see how you would sing if you got into a battle, and from a weapon like a monkey you had only sticks b. In vain did you translate the topic into personalities, it just shows that in addition to insulting your arguments, you have zero.

        Nikolai
        NIKULIN
        MEMORIES
        ABOUT WAR

        “Most books about the Soviet-era war do not go beyond the limits defined by the Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Perhaps that is why they are so similar, as if written by one author.”
        1. Buffalo
          Buffalo 10 October 2015 10: 35 New
          +5
          Among the writers, there were also enough denigrants.
          Vasil Bykov (emigrated from Belarus), Victor Astafyev, etc. Looking from their trenches, they later tried to condemn the command, only on the grounds that it was extremely difficult for them at the front.
        2. Alone
          Alone 10 October 2015 11: 49 New
          +1
          Let's remember Rezun?
          1. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A 10 October 2015 12: 56 New
            +5
            Quote: Alone
            Let's remember Rezun?

            In-in .. Also that same "truth-teller" of those who escaped. And then, in a book of his own, he wrote that the English military computer simulated the Mannerheim line for him and gave out that without tactical nuclear weapons it was impregnable.
        3. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 10 October 2015 12: 52 New
          15
          Quote: Kaiten
          Let's see how you started singing if he got into battle, but from a weapon you like a monkey, only sticks were used.

          А YOU Do you think that after the 45th we had nowhere to fight? AND YOU Do you think that in my time they didn’t get into the “one-stick” battle? Only we behaved not like monkeys, but as befits a RUSSIAN SOLDIER.
          Knocked down - fight on your knees, you can’t get up - step on the ground! Nothing to shoot - bite your teeth!
          Remind whose quote?

          And he changed his personality, because the grandfathers who defended Moscow grew up grandchildren who did not remember the words of the Motherland and did not understand what their grandfathers told them. My grandfather also survived in besieged Leningrad thanks to a stew of wood glue with snow. So, damned commies are to blame with their main cannibal Stalin at the head that they didn’t deliver sausages ?! Yes, my grandfather would kill for such words. And yours too. Because THEN there were no Jews, Russians, Chuvashs, Ukrainians — there were Russian soldiers.
          It doesn't matter what your skin color or eye shape is - for the enemy you are all - RUSSIAN SOLDIERS.
          The source is the same as above.

          And now the descendants of those soldiers went different ... For immigrants to the Promised Land there is a good word in Russian - "repatriate". Feel the difference with the word "patriot"? "Re-" and "patriya" - the one who CHANGED the Homeland. Homeland is that which does not change. As a nationality, as parents, with this they are born and die. If a soldier - then they die in battle, and not in the whining, that he lacks something to win. When do you, star-striped, learn how to poison yourself not to spit in the country in which you were born, grew up, learned and which you exchanged for the warm sand of the Dead Sea?

          Do not teach us how to live and fight, do not insult the memory of your and other people's grandfathers who defended the Homeland that you abandoned. Nothing to say without barking - speak better about Palestinian terrorists, about Hezbollah, about Merkava’s tanks or about the poppy harvest in Afghanistan ... And do not touch the homeland abandoned by you, repatriates!
        4. erg
          erg 10 October 2015 16: 03 New
          +3
          I will not get involved in the current discussion, I will just say about Nikulin's memoirs. Mass blackening began in the late eighties and flourished violently in the nineties. I remember these times very well and as a history teacher we got acquainted with various publications from the press at the lessons of history (late 80s). Then much was written and anything, up to Hitler's excuse. Various memories, supposedly participants, multiplied like mushrooms after rain. And nobody was afraid to print anything. But nobody heard anything about Nikulin’s memories. But when gradually what’s what was happening, then these memories suddenly appeared. And already after the death of the author (whether the author?). Just like a trump ace from a sharpie's sleeve. Moreover, such a late appearance was allegedly due to the fear of the author. What fear? In the nineties it was possible to glorify Hitler and all was nevermind. I remember very well what brochures were sold in those years in each passage in Moscow. In general, a dark story with these "memories." Yes, I myself read them. Did not impress.
    2. PROHOJIY
      PROHOJIY 10 October 2015 10: 23 New
      +1
      And my grandmother is a blockade. So she "testified" to the last that the Badaevsky warehouses were blown up by order of Zhdanov. And what, I also believe her, because a relative? Witnesses are also people and are subject to external influences.
    3. Pissarro
      Pissarro 10 October 2015 10: 34 New
      0
      purely technically, it is possible to select weapons when attacking the enemy when the battlefield is yours. The militia fought defensive battles, retreating to Moscow, the Germans picked up weapons there. In addition, the USSR had strict accounting and control, because all the papers about how militia divisions how many weapons were issued
    4. Buffalo
      Buffalo 10 October 2015 17: 55 New
      +2
      The captured weapons were handed over due to the lack of ammunition, and most importantly, because they could take their own from afar for the Germans, those who were armed with them and shelling.
  • Gray 43
    Gray 43 10 October 2015 07: 49 New
    -5
    My grandfather in his first battle, in Stalingrad, went with a brick, there weren’t enough weapons, so patriotism was a necessary thing, but in our history of that war, not everything was smooth and beautiful
    1. avt
      avt 10 October 2015 10: 02 New
      11
      Quote: Gray 43
      My grandfather in his first battle, in Stalingrad, went with a brick

      When and where specifically. They said A, say B. If in the summer there are volunteers, or railway workers and MPVO fighters, who, together with the soldiers of the NKVD division, stopped the Germans' breakthrough into the city before the retreating units of the Red Army approach, I believe that there really could not be enough weapons. But here is the retelling of the French lie from the film “Enemy at the Gates” with the crossing of Rodimtsev’s landing corps / division, where unarmed soldiers hesitating at the landing of the commissars / nkvdshniki are shot, no need to retell.
      1. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 10 October 2015 20: 41 New
        +1
        avt "When and where specifically."
        Auth! Respect !!!)))
    2. SVT
      SVT 10 October 2015 17: 25 New
      +3
      Just join the question for at least a month can I clarify the first battle of your grandfather?
      And also his VUS
      And despite any month, I offer the following options
      1 Your grandfather drowned his weapons when crossing the Volga, since they were often transported on whatever happened, since the regular means are constantly not enough when crossing, this is an axiom, no matter how many are missing, and given the shelling of the crossing, drowning a weapon is normal, that's your grandfather went into battle without weapons.
      2 your grandfather was, for example, an artilleryman, the first number of a machine gun, mortar, etc., which often had PERSONAL weapons in accordance with the norms of the Second World War, and after the gun broke or it again drowned during the crossing, he went into battle without weapons, and that’s doubtful and that’s why, the battles were fierce and, accordingly, the weapons also failed, ALL NORMAL commanders ALWAYS force the soldiers to pick up weapons on the battlefield in order to have an operational substitution, so that your grandfather could slightly embellish the situation, he really could go with the brick, but, until the stronghold was located, where he had to defend himself, where he was handed a rifle, and yes, he went into battle with the brick,
      Moreover, your grandfather told this to his little grandson and could tell the bike that happened to him. And he most likely told this with humor, they say, listen to my granddaughters what the situation was with me in the war, my grandfather poisoned me like that and I sat hanging up my ears, and only matured I realized that my grandfather was joking. (I apologize for the errors on the tablet and T9
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 10 October 2015 17: 31 New
        -4
        Quote: Svt
        And he said it most likely with humor

        Have you ever hit yourself with a hammer on your finger to talk about it with humor?
  • avaks
    avaks 10 October 2015 07: 54 New
    -11
    By the way, the production of rifles before the war was discontinued. It was believed that the army was fully equipped with them. And there was a stock of 7 million.
    1. avt
      avt 10 October 2015 09: 54 New
      +8
      Quote: avaks
      By the way, the production of rifles before the war was discontinued

      WHAT ??? Well, after all, they decided to say something, so bring a specific order on the profile people's commissariat! Why just spoil the air then?
      Quote: avaks
      it turned out that the army was fully equipped with them. And there was a stock of 7 million units

      If about ,, mosinki ", then generally they were going to exchange them in the army for self-loading SVT and Simon. For a second - only TWO armies were massively armed BEFORE the war they put self-loading rifles - USA and the USSR. Another thing that had already happened during the war quite an OBJECTIVE production and financial difficulties to revive the mass production of the three-line.
      1. allian
        allian 10 October 2015 13: 06 New
        -8
        Quote: avt
        For a second - only TWO armies were massively armed BEFORE the war, self-loading rifles - USA and the USSR. Another thing is that already during the war it was necessary to revive the mass production of the three-ruler because of quite OBJECTIVE production and material and financial difficulties.

        I like these tales.
        Comrades love to compare the SVT-40 samopal with the Garand rifle. For starters, Garand worked fine. Long and tedious. As befits a normal army weapon.
        And SVT-40 also worked. But not for long and not at all boring. Therefore, it was discontinued. I had to fight a gouge of the times of 1MB, better known under the name "mosin".
        For reference, the Mosinka was a rifle with the worst performance characteristics among European 1MV rifles (except for the Italian one, it was worse). But, very "technological".
        The same British Lee-Enfield had a TTX almost at the level of self-loading. This explains the fact that the British did not have self-loading. I didn’t need it.
        Mauser’s rifle lacked stars from the sky and obviously didn’t reach the British level. But the Germans made a “knight's move” and relied on single machine guns. For which in the second half of the war they were specifically punished. And they rushed to make ersatz type assault rifles. Just to fill the gap in the density of fire. At any cost. Even at the cost of reducing the effectiveness of fire.
        I will not describe the Italian 1MV rifle. There is nothing to describe there. By the time of 2MB (1938), the Italians prudently tried to switch from a ridiculous caliber of 6,5 mm to a more normal 7,35 mm. But they could not, the production base did not allow. As a result, they fought mainly with 6,5 mm bullets. And they were obvious outsiders in the rifleman.
        Very good in concept was their new rifle. But since it was tied to a specific sleeve, it was not entirely optimal. Almost optimal. But it was conceived very interesting and correct. Perhaps the only European rifle was during the 2MB, in which the cartridge and ballistics were optimized. Also a very good bunch was the handbrake bolt. But all this was produced in small quantities.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2015 14: 46 New
          +2
          Dear you, where are you fed up with such nonsense? Mauser 98k is one of the best in the world, the three-line by the way was not inferior to anything. And the legendary single machine gun of the Wehrmacht is still in service
          1. allian
            allian 10 October 2015 15: 20 New
            -2
            Quote: Nehist
            Mauser 98k is one of the best in the world

            The Germans did not agree with you. Therefore, all war sculpted self-loading. And then they agreed even with an assault rifle. Those. with a bespontovy ersatz began to replace "one of the best in the world" bolts. More comments comments on this topic are needed?
            Quote: Nehist
            the three-line by the way was not inferior to anything.

            Yes, you are not just a dreamer. You are a serial dreamer. If you insist so, then compare the performance characteristics of the Mauser and the mosquitoes. And also their ballistics. If you can, of course. Then the questions will disappear by themselves. And if you don’t know how, listen to what competent and knowledgeable people say to you.
            Quote: Nehist
            And the legendary single machine gun of the Wehrmacht is still in service

            Something you missed in my words. Probably the fact that the weapon is used in conjunction. Or maybe the Germans are still armed with the Mauser 98k too? Bundle Mauser 98k + MG42 is still in service? No? Well, then read and try to understand what is written there.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. 97110
            97110 11 October 2015 07: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Nehist
            Mauser 98k is one of the best

            I agree, but with a little thinning. He is one of the best because a carbine. And the mosquito is a rifle. Germany on the basis of 1MV rifles were banned. Pay attention to the "to" in the name of the system. And the word "kurts", by which this system is called.
            1. Alf
              Alf 11 October 2015 09: 22 New
              0
              Quote: 97110
              lasen, but with a little thinning. He is one of the best because a carbine. And the mosquito is a rifle.

              The armament adopted the Mosin rifle, but in reality it was a carbine.
              infantry. After the war ended, since 1922, only a dragoon rifle and carbine arr. 1907 [14].

              As a result of the modification of the dragoon version of the rifle, as shorter and more convenient, a single model appeared - a rifle of the 1891/1930 model. (GAU Index - 56-B-222).
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 11 October 2015 11: 30 New
                0
                Mosinka:
                Barrel length, mm:
                800 (infantry),
                729 (Dragoon and Sample 1891/30),
                510 (carbine)

                Mauser 98k:
                Barrel length, mm: 600
                before shortening: 740
      2. allian
        allian 10 October 2015 13: 06 New
        -8
        Quote: avt
        For a second - only TWO armies were massively armed BEFORE the war, self-loading rifles - USA and the USSR. Another thing is that already during the war it was necessary to revive the mass production of the three-ruler because of quite OBJECTIVE production and material and financial difficulties.

        I like these tales.
        Comrades love to compare the SVT-40 samopal with the Garand rifle. For starters, Garand worked fine. Long and tedious. As befits a normal army weapon.
        And SVT-40 also worked. But not for long and not at all boring. Therefore, it was discontinued. I had to fight a gouge of the times of 1MB, better known under the name "mosin".
        For reference, the Mosinka was a rifle with the worst performance characteristics among European 1MV rifles (except for the Italian one, it was worse). But, very "technological".
        The same British Lee-Enfield had a TTX almost at the level of self-loading. This explains the fact that the British did not have self-loading. I didn’t need it.
        Mauser’s rifle lacked stars from the sky and obviously didn’t reach the British level. But the Germans made a “knight's move” and relied on single machine guns. For which in the second half of the war they were specifically punished. And they rushed to make ersatz type assault rifles. Just to fill the gap in the density of fire. At any cost. Even at the cost of reducing the effectiveness of fire.
        I will not describe the Italian 1MV rifle. There is nothing to describe there. By the time of 2MB (1938), the Italians prudently tried to switch from a ridiculous caliber of 6,5 mm to a more normal 7,35 mm. But they could not, the production base did not allow. As a result, they fought mainly with 6,5 mm bullets. And they were obvious outsiders in the rifleman.
        Very good in concept was their new rifle. But since it was tied to a specific sleeve, it was not entirely optimal. Almost optimal. But it was conceived very interesting and correct. Perhaps the only European rifle was during the 2MB, in which the cartridge and ballistics were optimized. Also a very good bunch was the handbrake bolt. But all this was produced in small quantities.
    2. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 10 October 2015 20: 32 New
      +2
      avaks] By the way, the production of rifles before the war was discontinued. It was believed that the army was fully equipped with them. And there was a stock of 7 million pieces.
      Less to you for writing nonsense.)))
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 10 October 2015 07: 56 New
    +3
    It’s time to debunk this myth !!!! already exaggerated!
    1. PPL
      PPL 10 October 2015 08: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      It’s time to debunk this myth !!!! already exaggerated!

      What is in the way? Begin, but not unfoundedly, but with facts and links to documents.
  • iury.vorgul
    iury.vorgul 10 October 2015 08: 40 New
    11
    I believe more in my grandfather, who left for the Moscow militia in 41, than this propaganda. Back in 75, he told my father how they, almost unarmed, were forced to attack Moscow and pick up weapons from soldiers who had been killed before. And after the attack, the Andons came from headquarters and were forced to surrender the selected weapons.
    And also the bloody SMERSH immediately shot the heroes-criminals who died in hand-to-hand fighting and killed at the same time a hundred hundred fascists and awarded the Order of Victory to field-general generals' wives. Have seen enough of Russian films and TV series "about the war". I deeply respect veterans, in 1943 my grandfather died, but I will give one expression, whose I don’t remember: “Nowhere is they lying like hunting and war”.
    1. Kaiten
      Kaiten 10 October 2015 09: 07 New
      -2
      Quote: iury.vorgul
      And also the bloody SMERSH immediately shot the heroes-criminals who died in hand-to-hand fighting and killed at the same time a hundred hundred fascists and awarded the Order of Victory to field-general generals' wives. Have seen enough of Russian films and TV series "about the war". I deeply respect veterans, in 1943 my grandfather died, but I will give one expression, whose I don’t remember: “Nowhere is they lying like hunting and war”.


      I do not watch Russian films, only old Soviet ones. Russian films are not clear and boring to me.
      you read about the fate of the Moscow militia, what was the percentage of losses and if you are a decent person, you will be ashamed of your words.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 10 October 2015 09: 35 New
        11
        Oh yes ... Just remind me against whom the militia fought? Against a regular, trained, well trained and snuffed gunpowder army.
        Here it would be compared with the 44-45th ... but only their militia or rattled around the porches laughed at the Fausts, and after that I wasn’t me and I just stood there or scattered like a commander was killing current. Ours stood on conscience, went to bayonet attacks - from here and losses.
        1. Kaiten
          Kaiten 10 October 2015 10: 01 New
          -4
          Quote: ShadowCat
          Oh yes ... Just remind me against whom the militia fought? Against a regular, trained, well trained and snuffed gunpowder army.
          Here it would be compared with the 44-45th ... but only their militia or rattled around the porches laughed at the Fausts, and after that I wasn’t me and I just stood there or scattered like a commander was killing current. Ours stood on conscience, went in bayonet attacks, from here and losses.

          Did I argue with that? I am simply against forgetting those who disappeared obscurely in the fields and swamps at the beginning of the war.
          1. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 10 October 2015 11: 22 New
            +2
            You, my friend, a Jew. You already decide how it was, and do not run between smart and beautiful.
          2. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 10 October 2015 11: 22 New
            -1
            You, my friend, a Jew. You already decide how it was, and do not run between smart and beautiful.
      2. Nehist
        Nehist 10 October 2015 14: 49 New
        +2
        The losses of the Moscow militia are quite justified by the situation at the front! The superiority of the Wehrmacht in artillery, tanks and aircraft. It’s hard to resist all this with small arms.
      3. iury.vorgul
        iury.vorgul 11 October 2015 02: 36 New
        +1
        Reflecting the enemy’s night attack, at 6.15 on April 24, General Maksimov’s detachment, with the support of 3 tanks and 4 ISU-122, began a breakthrough through Dizu to Enkendorf. Halfway to Diza, the detachment was surrounded and, as it is written in the report of the headquarters of the 7th Guards. the mechanized corps, "most of the personnel who selflessly performed the task in the battle for connecting with the rifle units of the 52 army - died and only 30% made it to Niski - joined our infantry in the morning of 25.4.45" {268}. During the attempt to break out of the encirclement, the following were lost: deputy commander of the corps Hero of the Soviet Union of the Guard Major General Maximov, commander of the 25th Guards. mechanized brigades Hero of the Soviet Union Guard Colonel Dudka, chief of the operational department of the headquarters of the Guard Corps Major Udovitsky, chief of staff of the 57th Guards. Tank brigade guards Major Shestakov, deputy chief of political affairs of the corps of the guard Lieutenant Colonel Savinov and many others. In battles for Weisenberg, the corps lost 983 personnel, 10 T-34 tanks, 1 IS-2, 6 ISU-122, 3 SU-85, 3 BA-64, 6 armored personnel carriers, 20 guns and 12 mortars.
        Why should I be ashamed? For the percentage of losses among militias in 1941? I cited a quote from a study by A.V. Isaev about the battles of our troops in April 1945 in the Dresden area. Also fought with one rifle on 3? The Germans were a strong, well-trained, ideologically motivated opponent, and not stupid idiots, and this was the loss. All the more glory to our fathers and grandfathers, who were able to defeat the fascist war machine. And this was their merit - everyone, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief I.V. Stalin, and marshals, and generals, and unknown soldiers, and aunts in the rear on collective farm fields, and boys at machine tools in workshops, and other millions and millions. Everything was. Including it could be that somewhere there was not enough small arms and in part there really was one rifle for three. Well, it’s necessary to talk about this specifically, and not tell tales, but about how we filled up the Germans with corpses.
      4. 97110
        97110 11 October 2015 07: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Kaiten
        you will be ashamed of your words.

        Do not touch the history of a foreign country with dirty little hands. We may be ashamed only for your comments. And look carefully at the sunrise. There is your death. Uninviting. And in Russia your militia will not be ashamed, which, of course, wonders heroically before death where the Amer’s help has gone.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 11 October 2015 11: 11 New
          0
          There are towers too ... "False Flag" Operations.
  • evil partisan
    evil partisan 10 October 2015 09: 12 New
    +9
    1 rifle on the 3rd this myth from the same series as the huge loss of TB-3. In fact, most of the TB-3 survived the defeat of the 41st and were used all over the place as night bombers and transporters, and after the war they still flew to the Civil Air Fleet, mainly in the North. But our anti-Stalinist historians, thank God, were stalled. I only have a question: until Rezun, will it be on the shelves of bookstores ???? am
    1. rohl
      rohl 21 October 2015 03: 36 New
      -1
      What did Rezun do to you?
      At the expense of TB-3, do you know how many have made them? Do you know that our country is not the smallest, and at 41m was a little bit more than now? What TB-3 could be not only on the western border, but in the same extreme north? AND! Yes, Rezun is to blame for everything.
  • Cossack Ermak
    Cossack Ermak 10 October 2015 09: 41 New
    -1
    I read somewhere that the weapons depots were close to the borders. Since it was supposed to fight only on enemy territory. As a result of the blitzkrieg, we were cut off from strategic warehouses. Plus the evacuation of many plants inland. This gave a lack of weapons in the first year of the war.
    1. avt
      avt 10 October 2015 11: 25 New
      +4
      Quote: Cossack Ermak
      I read somewhere that the weapons depots were close to the borders.

      Somewhere, something like that .....
      Quote: Cossack Ermak
      . Since it was supposed to fight only on enemy territory

      Well, there was such a song, but what? Do you propose massively launching songs about the fact that everything is awake? But you are aware of WHAT maps did the General Staff order when planning military operations at the Western Theater of the alleged war? I mean the eastern border of this planned theater of war and a scale map for Vanka Vzvodnogo, rather than globes for Stalin, according to which he was obliged to fight in the understanding of liberal intellectuals. So the General Staff ordered sets of maps to the Smolensk region INCLUDED !! How do you like that Is it a fact of a stupid, bloody tyrant "who was not preparing and overslept the Germans attack?" Or do you think it was Zhukov with a "horse equestrian" Tymoshenko, and he was from the First Horse, quietly plotted under the bed without Stalin’s sanction?
      Quote: Cossack Ermak
      As a result of the blitzkrieg, we were cut off from strategic warehouses. Plus the evacuation of many plants inland. This gave a lack of weapons in the first year of the war.

      Quote: Cossack Ermak
      As a result of the blitzkrieg, we were cut off from strategic warehouses. Plus the evacuation of many plants inland. This gave a lack of weapons in the first year of the war.

      And I agree with this - in general terms - YES. The Germans and I began to do exactly the same from the 1944th and on a smaller scale, the difference was only in the fact that we did not commit atrocities against the civilian population, even after what our grandfathers had passed through the Volga and what we had seen on our land who had been under the Germans.
    2. evil partisan
      evil partisan 10 October 2015 12: 52 New
      +5
      Quote: Cossack Ermak
      I read somewhere that the weapons depots were close to the borders. Since it was supposed to fight only on enemy territory.

      Rezun. Life-giving ... am
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 10 October 2015 20: 42 New
      0
      the phrase ,, read somewhere, sets up a frivolous conversation
    4. 97110
      97110 11 October 2015 07: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Cossack Ermak
      I read somewhere

      In the conditions of such a war, such a movement of the front, do you imagine the transport problem of delivering the right cargo to the right place? I do not even touch the problem of collecting and processing information about what is and where it is needed, what and how much has been produced, is being produced and will be produced. How much will reach Murmansk and from Murmansk to the front. And with the elbow of the left hand you need to steer the evacuation. These are superhuman tasks successfully completed by Stalin’s managers. Compare with what? Allies? Opponents?
  • Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 10 October 2015 09: 55 New
    +2
    We have a troll Mikhalych, welcome !! Who pays for the posts! Have you earned online Tan battalions? The liberal is recognized - a cry and no arguments !! laughing
  • Fox
    Fox 10 October 2015 10: 29 New
    +2
    I don’t agree with the article! It’s not serious, even Mikhailov, (the most brilliant director, Che) made the true film “citadel”, where scoops go with shovels from shovels ... no, he can’t lie, the great director can’t! !!
    Guys, well, let the glumators of the Victory get out, otherwise they won’t be paid. I feel sorry for them, miserable.
    1. avt
      avt 10 October 2015 10: 48 New
      +6
      Quote: Fox
      I don’t agree with the article! It’s not serious, even Mikhailov, (the most brilliant director, Che) made the true film “citadel”, where scoops go with shovels from shovels ... no, he can’t lie, the great director can’t! !!

      wassat YES! And if we take into account that he was broadcasting about thousands of kilometers of archived film that he personally watched, then the movie is obviously documentary! This is not a fairy tale for you, the mouse ran, waved its tail, the egg fell and crashed! ”Nykyta Sergeevich personally saw a newsreel where a spider German eyes was fixed to the German machine gunner, and he raised his tank naturally on the set. Well, personally, as well as some of those present here now, dad, the creator of the USSR anthem with El Registan, told how he put his face on the cake in Stalin's face. Probably even then he foresaw the current, “de-Stalinization” laughing
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 10 October 2015 10: 47 New
    +2
    Quote: Mikhalychch
    And you fought in those years? .. You and Stalin had a great commander, but he simply shot unnecessary ones. And Voroshilov allowed the Nazis to surround Leningrad, thinking that they would flee when an avalanche of horsemen with drafts would go to tanks, even for himself Stalin removed him from the command of the army.

    What cavalry with sabers are bald against tanks? Rezuna read?
    1. rohl
      rohl 21 October 2015 03: 37 New
      0
      Ahaha! Rezun just refuted it =) How funny it is to read stupid and primitive people, to whom pattern thinking replaces logic.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 10 October 2015 10: 51 New
    +2
    A weapon is such a thing that never happens in war.
    Often used trophy, especially machine guns.
    The entire personnel army in the 41st practically ceased to exist, 2 million were captured. Almost every soldier should have a rifle.
    These are all rifles, about 5 million, which belonged to the dead, prisoners, retreated - they disappeared, lost in battle and during the retreat. So at the end of the 41st beginning of the 42nd it was necessary to find another 5-6 million carbines for the newly created army. To produce such an amount, you need at least a year of operation of all arms factories in three shifts. Or it must be assumed that before the war, a stock of 10-12 million rifles was created. Hardly. For example, we see soldiers with Lewis machine guns in the pictures, that is, there was still a shortage of weapons and it was significant.
    The first caravans with Lend-Lease products were transported, including Thomson's assault rifles. Why ordered them?
    Consequently, the weapons were still desperately lacking.
    So explain to me if you have 10000 people in the newly formed division, and your warehouses are empty and you have 5000 rifles, what will you do? Will you go to the front with 5000 soldiers leaving the others behind? No, you will leave with the whole team in the hope that in the frontline strip you will get over something, there will be some sort of warehouse or the long-awaited weapon will still be brought up. Remember what the situation was with the tanks at the end of the 41st.
    So most likely this is not a myth.

    As for the cavalry, I note that on the territory of the USSR, the warring parties increased the number of cavalry formations. This is primarily due to Russian off-road, a kind of mounted motorized infantry and special forces all rolled into one.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2015 14: 57 New
      +2
      I will tell you a terrible secret !!! Of the 16000 personnel of the division, the military personnel is about 7000; all the rest are supplies, which by definition are not combatant, but they are also mainly armed with small arms. And under this definition, the guns
      1. Kaiten
        Kaiten 10 October 2015 15: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Nehist
        And under this definition and pistols

        Do you think that cooks and storekeepers were armed with pistols?
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2015 15: 09 New
          +1
          Oddly enough, but the Nagan system.
        2. 97110
          97110 11 October 2015 07: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Kaiten
          Do you think that cooks and storekeepers were armed with pistols?

          They also chopped Czechoslovak tanks with axes.
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 10 October 2015 10: 56 New
    -1
    Quote: Kaiten
    I believe more in my grandfather, who left for the Moscow militia in 41, than this propaganda. Back in 75, he told my father how they, almost unarmed, were forced to attack Moscow and pick up weapons from soldiers who had been killed before. And after the attack, the Andons came from headquarters and were forced to surrender the selected weapons.

    I am very skeptical about the "memories of grandfathers." As Stanislavsky said - I DO NOT BELIEVE!
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 10 October 2015 11: 05 New
      0
      One out of two. Or you need to rely on memoirs. Or you have to be a participant in the events yourself.
      You want to say that grandfather is a veteran with a dozen orders and medals earned by blood, a liar? Or did you personally go on the attack on German machine guns?
      Consider what era it was and far from everything could be remembered.
      1. 97110
        97110 11 October 2015 07: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        You want to say that grandfather is a veteran with a dozen orders and medals earned by blood, a liar?

        My grandfather, a senior lieutenant, a tankman, fought on Matilda. He told me that the Katyusha fired shells equipped with termite. He saw that after a volley everything was burning there. Grandfather is a liar? Termite shells? Veterans are living people. And they lie like eyewitnesses.
        1. Alf
          Alf 11 October 2015 09: 26 New
          -1
          Quote: 97110
          My grandfather, a senior lieutenant, a tankman, fought on Matilda. He told me that the Katyusha fired shells equipped with termite. He saw that after a volley everything was burning there. Grandfather is a liar? Termite shells? Veterans are living people. And they lie like eyewitnesses.

          Veterans simply did not know much, hence the confidence.
          What is a tank shell? Roughly speaking, a disc dispersed to high speed, equipped with a tiny, if not absent, explosive element. In Katyusha’s shot, by the time the rocket fell, there was still fuel, so it gave an incendiary effect.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 11 October 2015 11: 16 New
            0
            The fuel was gunpowder, it burns differently. Termite was applied from the first attack:
            http://www.chemfive.ru/news/boevoe_primenenie_termitnykh_smesej/2013-11-08-193
            1. Alf
              Alf 11 October 2015 20: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              Termite was applied from the first attack:

              What does “from the first attack” mean? And in the second attack, what happened? It seems that the usual verbiage begins.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 11 October 2015 23: 37 New
                0
                It seems necessary instead to just go through the link ...
    2. avt
      avt 10 October 2015 16: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Eugene30
      I am very skeptical about the "memories of grandfathers." As Stanislavsky said - I DO NOT BELIEVE!


      It’s better to double-check, especially of such chroniclers as Solzhenitsyn, Astafyev. Here you remember the persistent myth reflected in the Soviet cinema - Germans are completely machine guns and you can’t raise our heads from the fire, and we’ll have a three-ruler and what will you get with her. request By the way - sensible commanders got the first set of the Moscow militia - they managed to train the personnel as soon as possible at least to a minimum, well, God forbid everyone had moral wills. The Germans clearly figured them out on the front lines and tried to immediately crush the civilians - they didn’t sour the raids and did not break through the defense. And they came out of the subsequent encirclement along Vyazma DECENTLY with fights. Then they were brought into the state of the Red Army.
  • vomag
    vomag 10 October 2015 11: 05 New
    +1
    Here’s the thing 41-42g can be safely called a machine-gun drama for us ... big losses in the composition of the killed and prisoners, as well as the loss of even unopened warehouses in frontier wounds, etc. ... the removal of some models from the production of machine guns and the inability to sharply increase the production of new ones, all this resulted in the fact that already in November machine guns from the civilian + World War I went into battle .... But about Stalingrad ... Gray 43 I don’t believe you! Well, if only your grandfather did not participate in the defense of the tractor factory and directly in the shops did not grapple with the Germans in hand-to-hand fighting ..
  • Urri
    Urri 10 October 2015 11: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Eugene30
    What cavalry with sabers are bald against tanks? Rezuna read?


    "Not everything is so simple ..." (tm). My maternal grandfather (not native, he returned from the front without a hand, and drank without drying out) went on the attack near Rzhev. Just once. According to him, three chains went on the attack that day. The first with rifles and boots. The second in boots and without rifles - with pistols, shoulder blades and grenades, and the third - without boots and without weapons. Before the battle they were told directly - take the rifles and boots of the slain. No one bustled and did not stand on ceremony. It was such a time. Grandfather went on the attack to a height in the third chain, and was seriously wounded by a mine fragment already in the depths of German defense, in the second line of the German trenches. At the time of the wound, he already had a rifle and a German carbine on his hands, but did not have boots.
    After being wounded, he fought in the Baltic, took Vilnius, where he was re-seriously injured and lived until the end of days. Throughout his war he fought with a kit: a Mosin rifle, a Volmer assault rifle, a Mauser pistol. He especially liked the Mauser, from which he shot by ear. He said that there was no better weapon for battle in the city.
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 October 2015 21: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Urri
      Throughout his war he fought with a kit: a Mosin rifle, a Volmer assault rifle, a Mauser pistol. He especially liked the Mauser, from which he shot by ear. He said that there was no better weapon for battle in the city.

      I don’t want to offend your grandfather, but, nevertheless, I’ll ask a question. Did he carry three types of weapons on himself right away? This is only in Call of Duty real. And the fathers-commanders did not notice this fact?
      The second question is, what is Mauser’s gun so good at when fighting in the city?
    2. avt
      avt 11 October 2015 11: 39 New
      0
      Quote: Urri
      and the third without boots and weapons.

      Yeah, it’s not so simple. "Well, my decommissioned and civilian who hadn’t exchanged 60 years of life came home in boots with 44m windings, well, also without boots." Moreover, some preferred kirzach to good boots - more convenient especially in the summer.
  • Seneca
    Seneca 10 October 2015 11: 23 New
    -2
    Quote: KUOLEMA
    With one rifle for three, liberals and resunoids came up with and the training was not bad, but with the command it was stressful in the first stage

    Well, I don’t know what kind of liberals they came up with .. But I know from the school desk "one rifle for two" .. "tank hordes" "little blood", etc. .. So this is a Sovdep myth.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 10 October 2015 11: 38 New
    0
    If divisions of the militia were sent to the Mozhaisk line, "where they were engaged in the construction of fortifications and combat training," then why did tens of thousands of militias die in the Vyazemsky cauldron ?! The picture does not add up ....
    1. Buffalo
      Buffalo 10 October 2015 11: 56 New
      0
      Do you catch the difference between the border and the "boiler"?
    2. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 10 October 2015 20: 37 New
      0
      = nnz226 "If militia divisions were sent to the Mozhaisk border," where they were engaged in the construction of fortifications and combat training, "why did tens of thousands of militias die in the Vyazemsky cauldron ?! The picture does not add up ...."
      And you read how many formations of the whole BOTTOM were. And everything will become clear to you.
  • Vasily Krylov
    Vasily Krylov 10 October 2015 11: 43 New
    +1
    I already wrote on these pages that 9 people fought in our family, four did not return. There are many things in family memories of that time, including a shortage of weapons, etc., but surrounded (Lyubech, 1943, autumn ). The front stretched from the White to the Black Seas, perhaps somewhere there was a shortage, but rather not weapons, but normal leaders. The situation could not be unambiguous. I personally knew many front-line soldiers, but I did not hear about it from one of them.
  • Buffalo
    Buffalo 10 October 2015 11: 53 New
    0
    I would like to know which year goes to the veteran of the Great Patriotic War, Daniil Ivanov, who so confidently describes the events of bygone days, as if he only saw it yesterday. Well, you didn’t miss anything, not even the rudimentary transport and logistics system of the USSR, which did not allow delivering existing weapons to the front line on time.
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 10 October 2015 13: 05 New
    +1

    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    One out of two. Or you need to rely on memoirs. Or you have to be a participant in the events yourself.
    You want to say that grandfather is a veteran with a dozen orders and medals earned by blood, a liar? Or did you personally go on the attack on German machine guns?
    Consider what era it was and far from everything could be remembered.

    Of course, memoirs are good. But if you did not notice, I quoted the word of remembrance. Just because in forum disputes, many opponents, without any arguments in their hearts, refer to the "memories" of their ancestors, which often turn out to be just utterances for a red word. I personally did not communicate with his grandfather, and to believe the "words" of the grandfather, said to his father and then to him, sorry, this is stupid. There are still no documentary and other sources talking about sending "practically unarmed" to battle. I also know a bunch of ancestors fought and worked for 16 hours in the rear ..... The situations were different, and it is impossible to draw some general conclusions on their basis.
  • Thor
    Thor 10 October 2015 13: 12 New
    +2
    In fact, the theme of "Myths" will be discussed forever, and the myths "be hello," about any side of the war! Further, it would be possible to analyze the myth that all Germans were with the "Schmeissers" !!!
    1. PROHOJIY
      PROHOJIY 10 October 2015 14: 23 New
      +2
      Swing at the "holy"!
      Every viewer knows that Germans do not exist without Schmeisers. And also the charter forbade them to go on the attack without rolling up their sleeves to the elbow ... laughing
      1. allian
        allian 10 October 2015 14: 30 New
        0
        Quote: PROHOJIY
        that the Germans do not exist without Schmeisers

        This is MP-40, not Schmeisers
        1. PROHOJIY
          PROHOJIY 10 October 2015 14: 40 New
          0
          Because the smiley put that in the course and about 38 and about 40 MP. And also about the fact that any self-propelled gun at the viewer is called Ferdinand.
          For understanding again the mug - laughing
          1. allian
            allian 10 October 2015 14: 43 New
            0
            Now I understand. recourse
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 10 October 2015 13: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Urri
    Quote: Eugene30
    What cavalry with sabers are bald against tanks? Rezuna read?


    "Not everything is so simple ..." (tm). My maternal grandfather (not native, he returned from the front without a hand, and drank without drying out) went on the attack near Rzhev. Just once. According to him, three chains went on the attack that day. The first with rifles and boots. The second in boots and without rifles - with pistols, shoulder blades and grenades, and the third - without boots and without weapons. Before the battle they were told directly - take the rifles and boots of the slain. No one bustled and did not stand on ceremony. It was such a time. Grandfather went on the attack to a height in the third chain, and was seriously wounded by a mine fragment already in the depths of German defense, in the second line of the German trenches. At the time of the wound, he already had a rifle and a German carbine on his hands, but did not have boots.
    After being wounded, he fought in the Baltic, took Vilnius, where he was re-seriously injured and lived until the end of days. Throughout his war he fought with a kit: a Mosin rifle, a Volmer assault rifle, a Mauser pistol. He especially liked the Mauser, from which he shot by ear. He said that there was no better weapon for battle in the city.

    With all due respect to your grandfather, I’ll say: One rifle for three is MYTH.
    Another thing is that in war situations are different. Say, the Germans cut off the supply routes, bombed the weapons warehouse, took the defenders into the ring, etc. It was not always possible to get replenishment and ammunition. Which, perhaps, caused the command to throw a certain number of soldiers of the second and third echelons at one or another enemy defense unit in order to achieve any improvements. But the soldier sees the war from his trench, the real tactical situation is hidden from him, therefore, to draw conclusions about one rifle for three and other nonsense is not worth it.
  • NGK
    NGK 10 October 2015 14: 03 New
    +6
    Quote: DesToeR
    Quote: avt
    And after how long, France, surrendered, without repression with the victorious marshals of the First World and Allied British Army, packed with modern equipment, surrendered?
    France did not give up, France surrendered. Moreover, it is completely thought out and realized. The high French military command surrendered. Which refused to shed the blood of the French for the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. It was a very difficult and responsible political decision. But among the French, people capable of accepting him were found.

    Yes, just like that, the French did not want to shed blood for the Anglo-Saxons, but they gladly shed their blood for the Germans. The number of Frenchmen who died in the Wehrmacht and the SS on the Eastern Front far exceeds the number of Frenchmen who died in the war with Germany. I read somewhere that the Wehrmacht's youngest soldier was a Frenchman and the SS Charlemagne division in Berlin fought until the last soldier. And what did the French- "SS men in the occupied territories in Russia do? The Frenchmen were not sitting on the side when signing the surrender, Keitel was right!
    1. allian
      allian 10 October 2015 14: 26 New
      -10
      Quote: NGK
      The French were not standing on the side when signing the surrender - Keitel was right!

      But Dzhugashvili, well, the one among the allies was the most important, according to the Bolsheviks, did not argue with the French signing the surrender of Germany. I had no such right. He was too shallow to have an opinion. And Germany (and all of Europe) was then Derbanil not for three, but for four. Cleverly, the share of the USSR decreased from 1/3 to 1/4. Here he was, this "main" member of the coalition. Who, as it were, did everything himself.
      What, then, was so generously shared in prey? This is more like hired work. For a small fraction.
      1. vomag
        vomag 10 October 2015 20: 19 New
        0
        Woooo business !!then Derbanili not for three, but for fourDid I miss something in the Europe section? and who was the fourth at the Tehran Yalta and Potsdam Conference ?? ... Vangyu the new alternative historian is almost ready allian time to sit down for your dissertation ..... Well, or start on friendly terms with friends ....
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • PROHOJIY
    PROHOJIY 10 October 2015 14: 19 New
    +2
    Quote: wicked partisan
    I only have a question: until Rezun, will it be on the shelves of bookstores ???? am

    The defector writes curly, and they still read him. After all, in our country, military history books are written mainly in Kondov language. Only really interested can overpower. And Rezun read "easy and everything is clear." And then you can reasonably talk about the "causes of defeat." So here, perhaps two troubles - poorly taught at school to work with historical literature and the inability of our historians to write for the general reader.
  • Kaiten
    Kaiten 10 October 2015 14: 40 New
    0
    About war

    Affiliate.

    Valery Petrovich - head of a large security office. But due to the specifics of the business, the guys are guarding it not with some complex objects, but simply with large areas that are of little interest to anyone because there is nothing to drag. But the people in the company for 1000 people. The contingent is appropriate, consisting mainly of young boys without a strong desire for a steep career growth (at best), and at worst, generally without a desire for anything other than silence and moonshine.
    Mid-level managers were different - but for the most part they differed from ordinary guards only in their presence of brains and responsibility.
    The top leadership, except for Valery Petrovich, consisted of retired security officials and had their own views on life often quite specific, which, however, allowed to solve most of the problems that appeared.
    Valery Petrovich himself, formerly an office colonel, lived a very quiet life as a hereditary security official.

    But somehow, sitting in a bathhouse with the heads of departments and deputies, he had a tough argument about the Second World War. Grandfather Valery Petrovich died, like his two brothers, even before the Battle of Stalingrad.
    The opinions of the audience were divided, and the discussion began to acquire a very intense character.
    The arguments were classic - you can read them by going to any historical forum of the present time.

    And then Valery Petrovich took the floor.
    “Dear employees! I thought about it and realized that we just need to unite the forces of our team. Moreover, the Dandelion company, at the facilities of which almost half of our staff works, didn’t pay us and for the prevention of such actions we are single day we’ll partially remove our people from its facilities. Also, everyone who is not on duty will also join us. I will inform you about the rest the day before. The uniform is for camping. "
  • Kaiten
    Kaiten 10 October 2015 14: 41 New
    -1
    And then a great day came.
    Valery Petrovich did not even say anything to his first deputy, for everything should be honest.

    Arriving at the place, personnel in the amount of almost 700 people (1-2 battalions depending on the time and type of troops) saw a large field in front of him, fenced with flags.

    Along the edges of the field were people with plastic shields and helmets.

    Then, to all their joy, everyone was given a uniform for playing paintball and personal weapons.
    In addition to personal, the middle management was given a dozen wonders of paintball equipment such as mortars and machine guns.
    Moreover - 2 leaders even got a personal minitank :)



    And when the boxes with grenades were put in front of the ordinary staff, then euphoria began like on New Year's Eve.

    When the general euphoria of what was happening subsided - Valery Petrovich asked the leaders
    build personnel platoon and went out in front of the formation with a megaphone in his hands.

    “Dear employees, today you personally, you can say on your own skin, will learn what the Second World War is. Moreover, you will have a lightweight option - for you, my dears, will not be bombed by airplanes and will not be fired by artillery.

    Before you is a field. In the middle of the field, a line is drawn on the grass with paint. All who do not cross this line 15 minutes after the start of the battle will be dismissed from the company.

    The rules are monitored by a third-party organization that I specifically hired, which even your leaders did not know about.

    Entering into a dispute with judges is not permitted.

    At the end of the field - 2 bunkers and 2 snipers.

    Six people are playing against you. You are almost 700 here.

    Employees start to laugh in a voice.

    I repeat, for those who have not heard or did not believe - SIX people are playing against you, and you are seven hundred.

    You have one and a half dozen machine guns and mortars and two tanks. They have only 2 machine guns and personal weapons.

    The euphoria is not appeasing.

    Now, one selected person from each platoon will come with me and look at these people. He will remember in person that later there would be no indignation on the topic that someone had deceived someone.

    And now about the pleasant and unpleasant.

    My word is always fulfilled and everyone knows that (in the company it was an iron rule, Valery Petrovich punished and benefited with lavish generosity and cruelty, respectively).

    About the dismissal of those who do not cross after 15 minutes the line marked with paint, I wrote.
    Understand the whistle, it will be given a minute before the time expires.

    Those who get paint, regardless of the place of entry, leave the battle, getting up and IMMEDIATELY going in the opposite direction without weapons. The weapon remains on the ground in the place where it hit you.

    A person who continues to move after getting into it, and is seen behind it by a judge, quits regardless of position.


    And now the main thing:

    In an hour, the battle will be over.

    - Those who do not get paint will receive 3 full salaries and an extraordinary 2-week paid vacation.
    Ovation in the team.

    Before the bunkers there is a line outlined with paint, meaning a 5-meter line.

    Those who cross it will receive a six-month salary and a month of vacation at the expense of the company.

    Ovation in the team is growing.
  • Kaiten
    Kaiten 10 October 2015 14: 42 New
    -1
    And now, the main thing.

    Anyone who enters the premises of the bunker receives a bonus in the form of an annual salary and two months of paid vacation with the whole family in my personal villa in Spain.

    The ovations after this phrase were worthy of the Party Congress in its best years ...

    And now, the chiefs who are appointed platoon commanders, under the direction of my deputies, will develop a battle strategy, and for now you can shoot your personal weapons on targets.

    By the way, lastly, I note that almost all those present had two years of service in the army, and are good at handling weapons, as well as in the course of military discipline.
    Your grandfathers who fought at the beginning of the Second World War did not have all this.

    I'm done, get started. "


    Then there was euphoria, laughter, free moonshine, gunfire and plan development.

    The selected group examined the fortifications on the other side of the field, and seeing the squelks who will protect all this, brought their colleagues even more joy.

    And then there was a FIGHT.

    You can read about him in a large amount of historical literature about the same Rzhev.

    Actually - nothing new.

    I emphasize once again that the guys were not bombed from the air, there were no mines and artillery. Lafa.


    But the results were very interesting:

    Out of all the personnel, less than 15 people remained alive in an hour. HALF DEPOSIT.

    Most of them hid behind the tanks, the commanders of which were killed in the first place, and lay there on top of each other like herrings, pushing out on the field all who tried to get into it, regardless of the ranks.

    About 20 dismissals ensued due to conflicts with the judges, of which a couple even went to the cabbage soup with the promise "to fuck you whole family."

    NOBODY reached the Bunkers.

    One employee who had fought in Chechnya before and worked at a separate facility, managed to cross the 5-meter line at the bunker, but was immediately killed.


    Loss of the defenders - ONE WOUNDED IN THE HAND OF A SNIPER.

    By the way, the mood of the “winning side” was extremely shitty - they swore to play more with such a scenario.


    The deputies of Valery Petrovich no longer entered into a discussion on the Great Patriotic War with him.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 10 October 2015 15: 15 New
      -1
      crap is complete. Of the 700 conscripted foreheads operating against 6 snipers in an open field, not one of the improper ones to put an elementary smokescreen on, under whose cover to add up to the bunkers? During World War II, fumes were successfully used just in such cases.
    2. timyr
      timyr 10 October 2015 16: 11 New
      +2
      It means that my grandfather was killed when he stormed German positions, as part of his company when crossing the Desna and in many other cases when attacking the German defense. But he did not know about it and survived. Well, take a dull padded jacket from him.
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 5 May 2016 12: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Kaiten
      Out of all the personnel, less than 15 people remained alive in an hour. HALF DEPOSIT.


      I confirm - there are many examples of this: when trying to break through the Neva in an offensive near Leningrad, the German battalion in fortified positions and a 105 mm howitzer battery held back an order of magnitude greater forces.
      Monstrous losses - MG-43 sewing machines are a terrible thing.

      Near Rostov, the equestrian division of 1000 people attacks the German battery of field cannons, which is covered by 2 machine guns and an infantry platoon — it attacks from the forest and it is necessary to overcome 800 meters in winter in the snow during a gallop. Of the 1000 people, no one rode. Half an hour later, a new division of 1000 people - repeats a suicide attack on the battery in the forehead - the same result.

      What is this example about: the life of a platoon commander in the Soviet army in the Second World War - 1 battle, the life of a company - 2-3 battles. If the battalion commander survived 1 month, he was considered a lucky and experienced commander. They did not have time to accumulate the experience of the command, the lack of competent commanders led to unjustified losses.
      A similar thing happened in the German troops when freshly formed units without combat experience were thrown into battle. But extremely rare.
      The basis of the German army was built on experienced non-commissioned officers, and the quality of German troops was declining towards the end of the war, with the inability to make up for losses by experienced command personnel. At that time, there was a qualitative increase in the armament and experience of command in the Soviet army.

      If a person survived 2-3 battles, he could already navigate the battlefield and could find shelter and his life was more dependent on random luck.
      Of those who began to fight in 1941 by 1945, less than 3% remained - with the exception of the senior command staff, rear officers and political officers who did not show their nose in the front during active operations, but wrote after the war beautiful books about their "heroism" in the war.

      as an example: Mikhin, Petr Alekseevich
      "Gunners, Stalin gave the order!"
      went through the war from Rzhev to Prague, in Mongolia and China. He commanded a platoon, a battery, a division. He was wounded three times and shell-shocked many times.
      By the way, it was this man who took the language on the eve of the Battle of Kursk.
      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/mihin_pa/index.html
  • Rezident007
    Rezident007 10 October 2015 14: 59 New
    0
    Quote: tolian
    Resident, you have some misunderstanding with the definition "everything is settled."

    What are you saying? And, you probably perceived the word "adjusted" as from the word "crap", no dear, I meant the word "adjusted", i.e. "establish" means establishing the right, depending on the combat situation, operational and tactical decisions of the command staff with the existing combat-ready units of the Red Army, which had weapons and ammunition, well, not everything is ideal of course ... but I wrote about this above.
  • Nehist
    Nehist 10 October 2015 15: 04 New
    +4
    Not enough weapons was a fact! But she was on separate sites in separate units. The myth of mass was invented in the time of Khrushchev.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 10 October 2015 15: 58 New
    +4
    There are a lot of myths generated during the time of Khrushchev, about a sudden attack ... about thousands of planes destroyed at airfields ... about one rifle for three, then it was clear why, in order to confirm the personality cult of Stalin and blame all the blunders on one person.
    Only a real story refutes it all, that's why they won.
  • Rezident007
    Rezident007 10 October 2015 16: 20 New
    +5
    According to some comments, it turns out that the badly armed, dirty, dumb, uncouth, unshaven, drunks, rapes, abandoned bricks and their trunks won? Of course, I exaggerated somewhere, but by and large, this slips in the media ... And "some" former republics take it at face value .. I want to say "YOU ARE IN YOUR MIND?". The Red Army is an exemplary example of discipline of all military branches and all ranks of soldiers and officers, especially in wartime. There were cases, but they are negligible (however, such cases are in all the armies of the world). MORE THAN the look and behavior, the discipline of the soldiers and officers who liberated Europe was on a special account .. "the image of the Soviet warrior" was valiant, noble, courageous, always looked according to the charter (well, maybe, if only from battle). All the peoples of Europe, where the Red Army was, remember their humanity and nobleness, help and kindness. (Again, there were cases, but according to the laws of wartime they were punished severely, there were only a few of them). After the war, Zpapda’s snappers and the United States perverted the truth, we are already invaders, ungrateful dogs .. Bismarck correctly said: “Russians always come back for their money ...”
  • shisha321
    shisha321 10 October 2015 16: 51 New
    +1
    One nuance at the expense of generals. It seems to me that the point is not that someone was shot or, on the contrary, was not finished off on time. And in the first and second worlds in the Russian army at the beginning of wars there were always not generals, but careerists, administrators of peacetime. In peacetime, commanders do not like power; they are too independent, independent, stubborn. They interfere with the calm flow of life standing at the helm. They require some reforms, innovations, argue with the authorities. Remember Suvorov, Skobelev, Makarov, etc. Nothing has changed for the second world war.
    1. timyr
      timyr 10 October 2015 17: 20 New
      +3
      This is such garbage in any army in the world. In peacetime, careerists climb over. In wartime, careerists scum and have to put those who know how to fight.
    2. Pissarro
      Pissarro 10 October 2015 18: 53 New
      +1
      Do you know a way to raise a commander in the absence of war? Share it smile
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 10 October 2015 19: 42 New
        0
        I share - There are many ways how to weed out the lack of class and careerists, then the generals will grow up even in peacetime.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 10 October 2015 22: 22 New
          -1
          empty words. You can be more specific smile
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 10 October 2015 22: 25 New
            -2
            No, you can’t ... (it will hurt your career).
  • timyr
    timyr 10 October 2015 19: 31 New
    0
    Unfortunately, there is no such way. Americans seem to have come up with. But nifiga did not work. It turns out to wage a war against the Papuans is one thing, and against an equal opponent is another
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 10 October 2015 19: 32 New
    0
    Quote: avt
    Quote: allian
    ? Didn’t execute any orders?

    Fulfilled, completely fulfilled the orders of the one who appointed him and who created the whole Red Army and supervised Trotsky.

    And explain to me my dear friend, where in the Red Army did you see unity of command as a principle of command and control? Who would allow Judas without the consent and approval of the party organs of "her" to promote? But what would you do in the place of the “executioner Tukh”, knowing that for the number of killed opponents of Sovvlast there will be no demand from you, but you can ask for a delay in the timing of the military operation and the loss of your troops so little.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 10 October 2015 19: 53 New
      0
      Judas led them in fact, the demand from the executioners was for a lack of quantity
  • Yasondinalt
    Yasondinalt 10 October 2015 19: 41 New
    0
    They heard about one rifle for three long before any rollers there. In those days, they didn’t even know about the commercials. The usual trampling into the mud of those years, from the series - Stalin is a tyrant, a gulag and other noodles on the ears!
  • Atigay
    Atigay 10 October 2015 19: 43 New
    0
    The neighbor, Tursun Omarovich Salibaev, went through the whole war. He was talking about one rifle for the 5th soldiers. It was in their part that was so. It is not necessary to whitewash history, rewrite, powder. Heroism was, who denies, there were supply errors, there was also a terrible situation on the fronts. War.
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 10 October 2015 20: 40 New
      0
      Atygay "A neighbor, Tursun Omarovich Salibaev, went through the whole war. He was talking about one rifle for the 5th soldiers. That was exactly what they had in the unit."
      That's it in their part. And not in all parts. And then it turns out the whole war with bricks in their hands won.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 10 October 2015 20: 49 New
        0
        With Molotov cocktails ...
  • Predator
    Predator 10 October 2015 21: 03 New
    +3
    Quote: derik1970
    you were there? were at the front? fought? liberals have you come up with everything? ... I have a great-grandfather from the Nazi concentration camp returned home in 1945, Thank God he still lived after captivity. I heard from him that there used to be one rifle for three or even not at all ... sit here to assent ... another question, who are you or the liberals rewriting the story ... take off the pink glasses ... the war is hard, dirty work, there were a lot of things, unfortunately there are a lot of similar opuses such as expert analysis ... not everything was written in the documents .. .

    I have not been there ..... But I’ve been doing search work for 12 years and I can say with confidence that by 1941. ALL of the Red Army fighters we found had personal small arms, grenades and ammunition. So there’s no need to lie. Once again I say that there were separate facts, but separate facts. You don’t have to go far, in 1985. I went out with my reconnaissance platoon to the location of the 116th DSB training center (Kandahar district) and an hour later Mohmed’s spirits came out there, so there were 10 AKMs and 2 PKKs for the whole training and that this training could have been without us ?! So now that the whole CA is from 1 ran for three automatically?
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 10 October 2015 21: 18 New
      0
      Not all, but some parts of the militia, and from 1 to 10, especially after the German breakthrough near Smolensk.
      1. Predator
        Predator 10 October 2015 21: 38 New
        0
        What a breakthrough is it near Smolensk ?! So in Smolensk all the militia (even a whole battalion) was provided with small arms for all 120%, including 853 machine guns for 328 soldiers! And it survived the battle with a whole motorized division for more than a day!
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 10 October 2015 22: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Predator
          What is a breakthrough near Smolensk ?!

          Why such questions? Wasn't he occupied?
          The allegedly Moscow militia, which plugged a hole left over from the Smolensk militia with all its machine guns ... which Moscow did not hit. repeat
          By the way, yes -

          http://smol1941.narod.ru/divnaropolh.htm
          photo from the title of the article, but is it written there?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 10 October 2015 22: 23 New
            0
            Although, no - it is written only about "one rifle for two."
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 10 October 2015 21: 27 New
    0
    [quote = ShadowCat] Why did France merge in a month? Why did England merge?
    And if France was the size of the European part of the USSR? Did she merge in 4 months? Calculate the average pace of the Wehrmacht's offensive in the 1940 campaign ("triumphal march across Europe" - 15-20 km per day) and in 1941 ("fierce fighting for every inch of the earth" - 40-50 km per day). After France, the German aircraft industry had to restore the production of bombers and dive bombers due to their significant decline. Due to the more than frivolous French policy of military construction and a completely idiotic system of basing and technical support for aviation, no more than 1/3 of all combat-ready fighters could be at the front at the same time, and the battle tactics were inferior to the German one. And who told you that England merged? Have you read the act of her surrender to Germany? Of course, if the Wehrmacht had landed on the island, it would have been so (which I personally would have been extremely happy about). But the question is: would Hitler have the strength to attack the USSR after this victory? And where is the probability that the Red Army would have stood near Berlin not in April 1945, but already at the end of 1941?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 10 October 2015 22: 02 New
      +1
      France has North Africa, they had where to retreat.
  • 97110
    97110 10 October 2015 23: 14 New
    0
    The militia, consisting of former military and civilians, was armed by force of necessity with berdanks
    Author, have mercy! Berdan system rifles? Or did Alfred Ressel use the Russian word “berdanka” in his book “On the Roads of War” because of his Kondo Russian? Having completely forgotten that we are talking about the battle for England. In RI in 1 MV, these rifles were not already used. I could be wrong. The now exposed Bolsheviks accused the tsars of the regime of selling rifles that had been disarmed to individuals. From, they say, and there was a terrible rifle hunger. Or is it true that the Berdan system rifles were sold to England due to obsolescence and removal from service? Abalde!
  • Uncle Joe
    Uncle Joe 11 October 2015 01: 36 New
    0
    There is a stable legend that at the beginning of the war our army fought “with one rifle for three”.
    And each legend has a real, but thoroughly crafted, basis.

    Kersnovsky, Anton Antonovich "History of the Russian Army" http://militera.lib.ru/h/kersnovsky1/15a.html

    From August 1914 to December 1915, 6 people were called up. They turned 290 rifles - one rifle for four people. The masses of unarmed reinforcements thrown to the front in 000 only reduced the combat effectiveness of the army, immensely increasing its bloody losses and enemy trophies.

    In the fall of 1915, in the rear units one rifle fell on ten soldiers, and on the front - for two. The situation on the Northern and Western fronts was especially bad, as they suffered the most severe losses during the retreat. In the IX Army Corps of the 3rd Army, for example, rifles had only the first battalions of regiments. In January 1916, according to Headquarters, in the armies of the Western Front, out of 754 combatant 000 — more than a third of all soldiers — were unarmed. We can safely assume that out of a total of 268 fighters, only about 000 were armed. And since each of the 1 Austro-Germans counted by General Alekseev [732] had a rifle or carbine, it should be assumed that the number of “bayonets” in the infantry and in the enemy was the same, with the opponents doubled in light and quadruple - in heavy artillery.

    In total, in the Russian army in the second year of the war, there were 35 (!) Various systems of rifles and carbines. There were regiments and even companies where two, three, or even four different samples were in service.

    In September, the rearmament of the infantry of the Northern Front with Japanese rifles began, which lasted until the spring of 1916 (the three-line freedmen were transferred to the Western Front). The hastily issued instruction for firing from Japanese rifles made gross errors, with the correction of which the Headquarters was in no hurry. The sights of these rifles were cut in Japanese measures and in Japanese numbers. Amendments to the careless instruction, drawn up in a timely manner, were put “under the cloth” in the Headquarters. Throughout the winter of 1915/16, our Northern Front fired into the air, over the heads of the enemy ...
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 11 October 2015 02: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Uncle Joe
      And each legend has a real, but thoroughly crafted, basis

      Of course. Only in the article is it about 1941. And not about

      Quote: Uncle Joe
      winter 1915/16

      request
      1. Uncle Joe
        Uncle Joe 11 October 2015 02: 44 New
        -1
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        Only in the article speech
        But I warned you that cerebrum сtenocephalides felis may affect you badly crying

        Turn on your cerebrum and answer yourself - where did the shnyag come from about one rifle.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 11 October 2015 03: 33 New
          -1
          Quote: iury.vorgul
          I deeply respect veterans ... but I’ll give you one expression I don’t remember: "Nowhere else do they lie like on the hunt and in war."

          You do not respect, otherwise you would not have written such a thing. You respect only the bloody one ... therefore it has been dragged here for some reason, although this quote is from the “other side”.
        2. Cat man null
          Cat man null 11 October 2015 12: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Uncle Joe
          where did the shnyaga come from about one rifle

          Substitution of the subject of discussion - a typical trick .. for troll

          The question was: is it true that at the beginning of World War II, three soldiers had one rifle. The correct answer is no, that’s not true.

          Uncle Joe, you yourself came up with a question, and you answered it yourself.

          Growing in front of your eyes, keep it up! yes
          1. Uncle Joe
            Uncle Joe 11 October 2015 17: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Cat Man Null
            Substitution of the subject of discussion - a typical trick .. for troll
            Why are you replacing it?

            The question was: is it true that at the beginning of World War II, three soldiers had one rifle. The correct answer is no, this is not true.
            The question sounded different, and the answer you provided is not correct, but yours.

            The article talks about a “stable legend”, and each legend has the basis of real events, which I revealed (when the time frame was purposefully shifted, and the reality of WWII was artificially sewn to the Second World War)

            If you do not understand this, then I recommend you once again to rid your cerebrum of ctenocephalides felis.
            Although it seems to me that you understand everything, but with excitement worthy of a better application, you are engaged in primitive trolling, which you constantly accuse me of.
  • rassom
    rassom 11 October 2015 10: 36 New
    0
    Alexei Isaev talks about this well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjJOsc3OGY
    I advise everyone to watch his program. All based on real facts and documents. Everything is calm and laid out on the shelves.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 12 October 2015 10: 48 New
    +1
    My grandfather fought in the militia near Moscow. More precisely, he fought, and his brothers, and nephews, and only my grandfather survived. He told me that there was indeed tension with rifles and ammunition, and they went to the front, he said, short-armed. Surely there were rifles in warehouses or somewhere. Perhaps they were even waiting for them ... but it did not work out.
  • Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 12 October 2015 12: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: Uncle Joe
    Quote: Cat Man Null
    Substitution of the subject of discussion - a typical trick .. for troll
    Why are you replacing it?

    The question was: is it true that at the beginning of World War II, three soldiers had one rifle. The correct answer is no, this is not true.
    The question sounded different, and the answer you provided is not correct, but yours.

    The article talks about a “stable legend”, and each legend has the basis of real events, which I revealed (when the time frame was purposefully shifted, and the reality of WWII was artificially sewn to the Second World War)

    If you do not understand this, then I recommend you once again to rid your cerebrum of ctenocephalides felis.
    Although it seems to me that you understand everything, but with excitement worthy of a better application, you are engaged in primitive trolling, which you constantly accuse me of.

    Well done Uncle Joe! For 170 days of 1700 comments. There is practically no information and thoughts. Some estimates to opponents. If these are not signs of troll, then what is it?
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 5 May 2016 11: 33 New
    +1
    False article.
    My grandfather said that in 1941 near Smolensk their regiment was thrown into battle - one for three and 5 rounds. He did not get a rifle in the top three fighters.
    The Germans defeated their regiment in 15 minutes and shot unarmed soldiers in an open field.
    Grandfather was captured and in 1945 was sent to 10 years of camp in Arkhangelsk.
    No need to misinterpret the truth about the Great Patriotic War!