"Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia" Topic

Of possible interest?

Free to read
PDF link

Amicalement
Armand

Have that one, terrific book and wargames scenario generator

Thanks!

Amicalement
Armand

I have it in several forms. Book, manuscript, e-Book …

Problem is, it is all written from the German's perspective, and the interpretations of the war are colored by the incessant prejudices of Nazi and German cultures.

a. Character. The Slav psyche especially where it is under more— or less pronounced Asiatic influences covers a wide range in which fanatic conviction, extreme bravery, and cruelty bordering on bestial­ity are coupled with childlike kindliness and susceptibility to sudden fear and terror. His fatalistic attitude enables the Russian to bear extreme hardship and privation. He can suffer without succumbing. At times the Russian soldier displayed so much physical and moral fortitude that he had to be considered a first-rate fighter. … In some instances, when he was dealt a severe, well-timed blow, a mass reaction of fear and terror would throw him and his comrades completely off balance.

See, there was no individualism. Even if the reactions ranged from A to Z, it must be somehow the inherent nature of that slavic blood in their veins. No other possible explanation.

b. Kinship With Nature. The Russian soldier's kinship with nature was particularly pronounced. As a child of nature the Rus­sian instinctively knew how to take advantage of every opportunity nature offered.

Because even those who grew up in major industrial cities must surely have had an inherent understanding of nature. And even if you were dealing with farm boys, it could not be that our farm boys might be able to do the same thing. Because what the Russians did was instinctive. All lower primates behave instinctively, right?

Not even possible that they had regulations or training about digging in and making defensive works. It was all instinct, from these simple "children of nature".

He was inured to cold, hot, and wet weather. With animal-like instinct he was able to find cover and adapt himself to any terrain.

So blatantly unaware, or dismissive, of even the slightest nuance or shading, not able to understand that some of the units facing them were better trained than others, more familiar with the local area than others, or more highly motivated than others, and I'm supposed to believe they know the tactics of their adversaries, much less the correlation of forces or effectiveness of their weapons?

I found it a painful read the first time, and it gets worse with each subsequent try.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Interesting. Looking at the Australian Military Forces Pocketbook for South Vietnam 1967…

The South Vietnamese soldier is generally sturdy and wiry and has good stamina. Active and manually dextrous he is readily trained in the sue of modern military equipment. Most of them are accustomed to working out of doors in tropical heat, humidity and monsoonal rains. He can live in the field for an extended period on a daily ration of two pounds of rice and a portion of fish. In counter insurgency operations, trained soldiers under capable leadership have displayed excellent combat discipline and area regarded as being effective, trustworthy and courageous under fire.

Probably copied from a US field manual or something, can anyone confirm?

I guess in comparison to the German description of Russians they are more based on reality and real world levels of training and leadership, rather than inherent racial "powers" or some such sh it?