"The Battle of Targul Frumos: A Defensive Stand on the" Topic

…Eastern Front

"May 1, 1944. Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Stepanovich Konev had a right to be pleased with himself and his men as he gazed at the maps spread before him.

Born in a small village in the province of Northern Dvina, Konev was conscripted into the Tsarist Imperial Russian Army in April 1916, but saw little action during World War I. During the Russian Civil War he served with distinction, becoming a political commissar. Graduating from the prestigious Frunze Military Academy in 1926, Konev served as a divisional and corps commander, escaping the massive purges that decimated the Red Army during the 1930s.

Soon after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Konev took command of the Western Front (the approximate equivalent of a German Army Group, containing anywhere from five to 12 armies). For the next two and a half years, he led various fronts in the war against Hitler, participating in the gigantic battle at Kursk and liberating the cities of Belograd and Kharkov. For his part in the encirclement and destruction of German forces in the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket in February 1944, he was promoted to the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union. Now, after years of bitter fighting, his 2nd Ukrainian Front stood poised in the Western Ukraine, ready to strike what was hoped to be a knockout blow against German forces in Southeastern Europe…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Great map … but they have the Infantry and Mobile(?) Infantry with the same symbol. That is incorrect.
link

They also make numerous mention of JS-IIIs. Certainly NOT in May 44 and doubtful during the war period at all.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

They also make numerous mention of JS-IIIs. Certainly NOT in May 44 …

I observed the same issue. A pity really, as it is an interesting article, but seeing such a glaring and obvious error repeated perhaps a dozen times just ruins it for me.

If it had occurred once, I could dismiss it as an editing error, a typo that got overlooked. But it is repeated again and again, and so again and again I am confronted with it, and it is clear that someone in the chain of production -- the author, the editor, whomever -- is not knowledgeable on the history of the forces and conflict being described.

If the article had instead said "Stalin tanks" all would have gone well. But saying "JS IIIs" is not an accident.

To me it is equivalent of saying the Russians were supported by MiG-15s or the Russian infantry was armed with RPG-7s. No, they weren't! And if you write that they were, you are not a credible source of history.

Too bad really.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Yes, there should be no JS-IIIs at that time. If this was a history paper at US ARMY Combined Arms School, the author would get a NO GO !

A simple conflation of IS-2/IS-3?

Possibly.

"During the battle, Hasso von Manteuffel, commander of the Grossdeutschland division, first encountered the new Soviet Stalin tank, "It was at Tārgu Frumos that I first met the Stalin tanks. It was a shock to find that, although my Tigers began to hit them at a range of 3,000 metres, our shells bounced off, and did not penetrate them until we had closed to half that distance. But I was able to counter the Russians' superiority by manoeuvre and mobility, in making the best use of ground cover." Manteuffel also noted that the Stalin tanks had several "disadvantages: slow, not manoeuvrable enough; as well, in my opinion their crews were not sufficiently familiar with the tank."
link

A simple conflation of IS-2/IS-3?

Possible.

The Germans in wartime reports often mis-identified vehicles, and also often mis-classified new vehicles when they were encountered in action. IS tanks and KV-85s are often confused in German reporting (at least one can assume so after viewing material from the Soviet side).

My understanding is that many German units identified the IS-2m, with the single-piece front slope, as a new Stalin tank, rather than just a production upgrade to the IS-2, with the stepped glacis. So there are German accounts of IS-3s in action that are based on mis-classification.

But I do not think that any IS-2m tanks saw service until a few months after the battles around Targu Frumos. So the conflation was probably not in the sources … at least not in any primary sources. It could well be that the piece is just a regurgitation of secondary sources, though, and so it may just be propagating a prior author's error.

More likely, though, to my expectations is just that the piece was written or edited by someone who simply doesn't know the difference. Which speaks to the credibility of the whole piece to me.

"During the battle, Hasso von Manteuffel, commander of the Grossdeutschland division, first encountered the new Soviet Stalin tank…"

This agrees with my understanding. This action was GD Division's first encounter with IS tanks.

But this should not be misunderstood. It was not the German Army's first encounter. The IS tank had already appeared in action several weeks earlier. It had performed quite well in earlier combats, and was already a subject of some mystery in German assessments.

Targu Frumos is notable on this point not only as the first time GD Division came up against IS-2s, but also (I believe) as the first time that the Germans did well enough against them that they could advance onto a battlefield and inspect knocked-out/abandoned IS-2 derelicts.

To this extent it is somewhat noteworthy as more than just another tactical engagement. But not if you name the wrong tank when you write the story.

I mean really, it's not like this article is History Channel pablum for the realityTV-obsessed masses. Who, other than genuine military history enthusiasts, would give two shakes of a rat's tail about whatever happened at a place called Targu Frumos? So you had better expect your target audience to be discerning on the details. And it's not like you aren't writing a history piece that takes some research and attention to detail in the first place. How hard is it to at least read a Wiki page on the IS-3 to check your facts?

I find it a real disappointment. Just puts me off of the whole piece.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)