About Battle of Berlin
|January 27th, 2005||#1|
| || |
Battle of Berlin info
however, how little do we know about htis battle, very little
in some cases russians suffered a huge casulty
in some cases they invaded wiht breeze
anyone care to tell me how the soviets performed and how the germans defended?
A signature is a little text that can be added at the bottom of the posts you make. It\'s limited to 300 characters (size 7 to 12) on 5 line(s) and 1 image(s) with none larger than 100x500 pixels and for a maximum of 20Kb. In your text, no more than 100 characters without space too.
|January 27th, 2005||#2|
| || |
The Russians were massacred and many lives were lost. City was in ruins. Considered worst street fighting ever. Even youths took up arms. Overall very sad. Battle was more symbolic and useful for Communist propaganda than anything else. Taking Berlin had little "real" strategic advantages.
|January 27th, 2005||#5|
| || |
If in doubt...... Panic!!!!!!!!
|January 27th, 2005||#6|
| || |
Much of the German strength was comprised of the Volkssturm and Hitler Youth, neither of which could be considered front line formations in any sense of the word.
If the Volkssturm, Hitler Youth and civilian casualties are removed, it can be seen that the Red Army suffered much heavier casualties than the regular Wehrmacht. There was very fierce hand-to-hand fighting as the Germans, especially the Waffen SS and Hitler Youth, were fighting for ideological reasons still and of course all Germans were fighting with fierce national pride at stake.
Overall the Red Army achieved their objectives, but they suffered heavy casualties partly due to inspired German defence on the approaches to Berlin and partly due to operational Soviet tactics which was to rely heavily on brute force to achieve objectives.
"An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice."
Frederick 1, Barbarossa
|January 27th, 2005||#7|
| || |
The most important thing to remember about the Battle of Berlin is this: the Russians rushed when they didn't need to and as a result they took many unnecessary casualties.
Considering the overwhelming numbers the Russians had, the proportionate losses should have looked a lot better than it did.
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!
"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
|January 28th, 2005||#8|
| || |
from a strategic point of view, it is a successful siege
from a personal point of view, if i was a russian soldier after 5 years of fighting the germans and just alive, i wouldnt be very happy to be dead in the final battle
apparently from what ive read the russians overestimated themselves, especially zhukov, whos front forces crushed through seelow heights: the first defence line was lightly defended where most soviet shells had been dropped at, the soviet tanks forces met their rresistance in the second line of defence, in which heavy unneccary casulties were caused because the soviets had gone to a frontal assult
overall the street fighting was bad, sometimes worse than stalingrad, for example, 203mm guns were brought up to gundown buildings and flak towers in direct point blank range
what wouldve happened if hitler never suggest lauching the ardenne offensive, he couldve saved a couple ss units and they wouldve been murderous on the soviet sin berlin
|January 29th, 2005||#9|
| || |
I seem to remember the two massive concrete Flak towers provided the last scenes of resistance.
Being strongly built and well defended.
One was situated at the Berlin zoo not sure where the other was.