• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Operation Bagration 22/6/44 to 29/8/44

Nestor Makhno

Grizzled Veteran
Feb 25, 2006
5,753
1,118
59
Penryn, Cornwall
After coming across a few references to this operation I have been puzzled about how relatively unknown this entire offensive is. (At least, I didn't know much about it :))

In terms of manpower it was massive with, depending on who you read, around 3 million combatants involved.

It was huge in terms of area covered, too, making the Normandy Landings appear like a small skirmish. There is some good info here: http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3421346.html and also an interesting assessment of the role of Maskirovka or deception in the Soviet victory here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_3-88_histp.htm

The area of operations is shown here: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2 europe/ww2 europe pages/ww2 europe map 30.htm

The whole subject is one that I intend to look into a bit mpore and see if I can unearth any more interesting snippets. If anyone else finds any useful links with a bit more info than Wikipedia has, please post them here.
 
I too have been interested in Bagration. I didn't know anything about it until I caught the end of a Dicovery Channel documentary saying "..led to the enirclement and destruction of Army Group Center" which made me very interested in the Operation. There is a derth of information seemingly everywhere about it though.
 
Upvote 0
About 2-1 in manpower, 10-1 in arty and, after the deception worked and tank units were moved South, about 20-1 in tanks... there was also fairly overwhelming air superiority.

And? Your point being what? "Dammit, those Russkies didn't fight fair"? or maybe "We only got pwnt cos of overwhelming odds"? (and I think it is safe to say you identify pretty closely with either the Wehrmacht or, on the basis of one of your previous posts, the nazis, hence my use of the 1st person pronoun in the quotes)"

Yeah, that really is too bad.

Preferences aside, the fact is that the invading army was repulsed from Soviet soil once and for all and Bagration was therefore a very significant moment in world history. With absolutely no disrespect intended to all those involved in Overlord et al., what little I have so far read tells me Bagration certainly contributed more to the defeat of fascism than any other military operation that year.

I make no bones of the fact that I have the deepest respect for the men and women of the Soviet Union who, despite unimaginable hardship and being trapped between two of the cruellest dictatorships the world has known, overcame the enemy who invaded their land. A lot of Russian soldiers would have been happy to stop at their own borders and, certainly, world history would have been very different if they had. But Stalin had other plans and was able to augment the thirst for revenge to the point that it had to be 'Berlin or bust' (to coin a well-known phrase).

I do not try to defend the barbarous excesses of the armies of either side, certainly not to the extent of labellling either side as any less civilised than the other. I would make the point that, on either side, atrocities were in part the kind of random acts of brutal madness that have happened in war since wars began and, in equal part, the result of the ideological frameworks of the two dictatorships in confrontation. Stalin was every bit as evil as Hitler.

Fact is that most people look on the defeat of fascism as a good thing, same way as they see the collapse of the Soviet union as a good thing. Sorry if you don't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Actually, I didn't see anything in Heinz's post that warranted a flame.

Bagration is the apex of soviet "hit em hard, hit em with everything you got" combined arms thinking. That's the whole point.

The soviets themselves proved that it's possible to mess up with overwhelming odds during Operation Mars. While the odds in Bagration may not make it a brilliant victory, it's still a victory and a notable turning point on the second front.
 
Upvote 0
"Dammit, those Russkies didn't fight fair"

"The only fair fight is the one you lose." I love an unfair fight... when I'm the one sitting on the advantages. :D I'm not as fond of the fair kind.

Nice job on giving a balanced account of Fascism vs Communism, and Hitler vs Stalin. First one I can remember seeing here.

Tomcat_ha said:
It was forgotten because of the Cold War

Lol! I know. It's that Information Ministry in the US... They control everything! :p
 
Upvote 0
I'm not a military type, but as I understand it one of the fundamental roles of army commanders is to try to make any fight as unfair as possible through concentration of force at vulnerable sites, interrupting the enemy's logistical chain ("spawn killing" if you will), use of terrain, superior numbers or whatever other means are available. There's no such thing as a fair or unfair fight in warfare.

And yes, Bagration was an absolutely massive offensive which marked the beginning of the end for the Nazis. I think one of the reasons it's relatively ignored in the west is it did lack a certain elegance. The operation relied on weight of numbers and equipment more than on manoever or tactics. This is not meant to denigrate the Soviets, it just makes for a less interesting historical study. For the most part the Soviets basically just steamrolled the Germans, which was of course the smart thing to do.

How anyone could view the Nazis getting beaten as anything other than good is beyond me.
 
Upvote 0
Well after a brief discussion via PM I am not sure that anyone has implied that it was a bad thing that the nazis got beaten. This may just be me being a hot-head. In which case, apologies to all concerned.

Meanwhile, back at Bagration, I have the list of the women awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union" for action in the operation and have posted it in the 'Wimmin snipers' thread.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Dear, Oh Dear. :rolleyes:

On topic though, yup, the Zaloga book is a very good source indeed and full of some very nice maps which give a real feel for the manoeuvres in some of the key battles. I would recommend it highly.

According to that article that aktionman posted (for which thanks), the force ratios were 3:1 combat troops, 10:1 tanks/SPG's (dropping to 6:1 including forces not in initial assault area), 4:1 aircraft and 8:1 guns and mortars. I would have to look closer to see which forces Connor includes in the calculations.

One thing that also appears to have contributed greatly to the scale of the destruction is Hitler's flat refusal to allow any form of retreat, be it tactical withdrawal to adopt positions for 'defence in depth' or not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Now, now guys. Please DON'T politicize this thread, people. It's been full of good information, I don't want this closed up. Or do you want get me started? Me, who shoved BuddyLee's ridicilous misinformation down his thick throat! ME, who gives the greatest sources! ME, the official forum stalinist! No? k then. ;)

Was the advantage in artillery "only" 8:1? I've seen numbers as big as 12:1.
 
Upvote 0
Well its an old phrase "Quality will out" for which the Russians added the corrollary "Quantity has a quality all its own!!"
I didn't realise the overmatch was quite that much but as has been pointed out frequently, if attacking you want ALL the advantages and thats just what they did. Simple plan done well+overwhelming superiority in men and materiel=Victory.
 
Upvote 0