MadeInChina
Active member
it was shortage of men, not weapons
Enemy at the gates
If there's one thing of which the Russians had no shortage of, it was manpower. For a large part of the war, the human-wave attack was their primary method. Just read Antony Beevors Stalingrad and you'll see.
For example, in the winter war the Soviets usually just rushed headlong into battle with battalion or regiment size units with direct frontal assaults. Naturally the results were more or less disastrous casualties.
For example, in the winter war the Soviets usually just rushed headlong into battle with battalion or regiment size units with direct frontal assaults. Naturally the results were more or less disastrous casualties.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Here's the biggest problem I'm seeing: Is it possible for a movie based on events on the Eastern Front to be successful?
When a movie makes less money than it costs to make, its a failure. Lets compare that to a movie we've all heard of that tells an almost entirely American WW2 story: Saving Private Ryan.
Accurate or not, "Enemy At The Gates" is based on the Eastern Front -- the place where World War II was won or lost. What would it take to see an Eastern Front movie see a reasonable level of success at the box office? At the very least, making a profit?
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2001/ENEMI.html
When a movie makes less money than it costs to make, its a failure. Lets compare that to a movie we've all heard of that tells an almost entirely American WW2 story: Saving Private Ryan.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1998/SVPRI.html
Accurate or not, "Enemy At The Gates" is based on the Eastern Front -- the place where World War II was won or lost. What would it take to see an Eastern Front movie see a reasonable level of success at the box office? At the very least, making a profit?
Practically every movie makes profit if given enough time. It's good nowadays that we have dvd-sales and video sales to beef up the sales.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/business
That worldwide figure you mentioned must be wrong, because I saw this in the theater.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/business
That worldwide figure you mentioned must be wrong, because I saw this in the theater.
godofthunder9010
Active member
That was a quick search and the data is prolly out of date, but still ... Saving Private Ryan (a mostly american WW2 story) outsells Enemy at the Gates by a long, long shot. I dunno, maybe Spielburg and Hanks can team up to try making a successful Eastern Front movie or series.
MadeInChina
Active member
it was a shortage of men, how can u transport the troops across the volga river without alot of incidents????
anyways, satalingrad was fought in defensenive most of the time as the russians learned *CHARGING does not work well in offensive.
anyways, satalingrad was fought in defensenive most of the time as the russians learned *CHARGING does not work well in offensive.
2ndShockarmy said:
That makes it a logistics issue instead of a manpower-issue. Let's put it this way.. The Soviets were still a nation of 180 million people and they were waging total war, meaning that even their women were mobilized to the Red Army. Lack of manpower was not an issue here,
2ndShockarmy said:
Well how do you attack if you don't charge then? :|
Sure there was some infiltration going on but usually every major offensive in WW2 was about a bunch of guys charging towards the enemy. Besides, even if you're on the defensive you still have to counter-attack.
MadeInChina
Active member
first you call in the 4000 + guns from the other side of the volga to bombard german positions, then u use snipers and take out officers, then you attack with SUBMACHINEGUNS and GRENADES while taking cover
well, thats how a chinese soldier would fight anywas
ur right, russians do charge.... not taking cover.... veyr sad...
well, thats how a chinese soldier would fight anywas
ur right, russians do charge.... not taking cover.... veyr sad...
AussieNick
Forum Digger
Hmmmm, that tactic sounds great in theory, and I'm sure the Russian command thought about it long and hard. But due to the pressure of the situation there was little choice except for frontal assault.
Plus a lack of available artillery, lack of armour, lack of aircover.... all those kinds of useful things that would be needed to support your idea. So trying to flood an area with men is the most effective method to quickly take and hold ground.
MadeInChina
Active member
which are you talking about, because im talking about stalingrad, by the time of operation uranus, the soviet iindustry settled basicaly amd produced enough machines to keep their numbers up. they had a definet advantage over germans in artillery, tanks, and their air forces are gathering up a storm.
strategy is also very important, such as the pincer movement to contain the 6th army,,..
Though not entirelly on the soviet side, the germans fought back bravely and the russians usually suffered heavy casluties despite the fact that hey are overwelming in artillery...
strategy is also very important, such as the pincer movement to contain the 6th army,,..
Though not entirelly on the soviet side, the germans fought back bravely and the russians usually suffered heavy casluties despite the fact that hey are overwelming in artillery...
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yes.
It was pretty much Russia's best tactic. What did they have that the Germans didn't? An almost inexhaustible supply of replacements.
And it's also true about that machine gun. It was for their own guys who would come running back. It was the only way to get those mass numbers to charge like that to the last man.
It was pretty much Russia's best tactic. What did they have that the Germans didn't? An almost inexhaustible supply of replacements.
And it's also true about that machine gun. It was for their own guys who would come running back. It was the only way to get those mass numbers to charge like that to the last man.
Flak88 said:
From what I researched there was plenty of snipers around Stalingrad, the Major and the guy from the USSR. Also there was women snipers there too for example Lyudmila Pavlichenko with 300+ kills. For the shortage of man power I'm not sure what to believe, numerous sources says there was a shortage and others say the opposite. Though there was a shortage of arms in that battle leaving men to charge at the enemy weaponless. I dont think noone really knows what happened there beside the very few who survived.Oh it is also said if you go to Stalingrad and look around and in the city you can find splinters of metal and bone.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
With the amount of life lost there, I wouldn't be surprised if you found stuff in the surrounding areas of the city.
Yeah, the Soviets used lots of snipers. And dudes running without guns.
Yeah, the Soviets used lots of snipers. And dudes running without guns.
AussieNick said:
Theres proof read the book 3 pages of proof but the movie really dragged it out, it was like if today the military sent a sniper to kill an enemy pot shooter and the sniper got a round in the head so we still get pot shot...
Ive seen Stalingrad, good movie.
victortsoi
Active member
the_13th_redneck said:
godofthunder9010
Active member
You'll get no argument from me -- the Eastern Front of WW2 needs to get more attention. Nations and peoples tend to only care about things that their nation was directly involved with, thus the USA and its people are very interested is the WW2 minor sideshows: D-day, N Africa, etc.