The history behind RO2

  • 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/

Shakermaker

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 2, 2011
131
36
0
Amsterdam
The age old line is that people don't know a lot about the Eastern Front during the Second World War. This probably doesn't hold true for a couple of forum goers but I am going ahead and assume that some of you don't know about the historical backdrop of RO2. I am bored anyway and a write-up seems like a fun thing to do, so here it goes.

Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. This came as somewhat of a surprise because the two countries had closed a non-aggression pact two years earlier. The initial part of the German invasion went quite smoothly. Most contemporary commentaries (also on the Allied side) were that it was a question of kicking in the door and the rest of the Russian house would collapse. That didn't prove to be the case. The Red Army kept the Germans out of their capital Moscow and the strategical city of Leningrad. Tens of thousands of Soviet troops were sacrificed in the process, either as casualties or as prisoners of war. The line held though. Besides by their resilience the Russians were also helped by the weather. The autumn rains made campaigning hard for the Germans and the winter eventually halted their offensive. It even made a Russian counter-offensive possible, although that led to nothing more than a straightening out of the battle lines.

1942 brought a new German offensive. In stead of going for Moscow though, Hitler decided on a push in the south towards the Caucasus. This region between the Black and the Caspian Sea holds a lot of strategic resources, most importantly oil. Like the year before the offensive went well eventually until Hitler started to interfere with the day to day strategy. He decided he wanted to capture Stalingrad, in stead of simply cordoning it off from the German left flank as was the original idea. That proved to be a fatal mistake. The Germans started their assault on the city with an air bombardment. Some historians argue that this only helped the Red Army because all the ruins provided perfect cover for the defenders. True or not, the Russians were able to hold on, if only by the skin of their teeth. Hitler famously declared an early victory in September but he was being presumptuous. October came and went but Stalingrad was still in Russian hands.

Meanwhile the Russian leader Stalin had two of trumps up his sleeve. The first one were his endless reserves. The Soviet Union was a helluvalot bigger than Russia is now, so it could draw on its large population to serve as troops or work in factories thousands of miles to the east in the steppe. Another trump was general Zhukov, the Red Army equivalent of Eisenhower and Montgomery. Zhukov set up Operation Uranus, a pincer attack on the weak German flanks far away from Stalingrad. The two prongs of the Russian advance joined up at the end of November, trapping the German Sixth Army in the so called kettle.

At that point of the battle the Germans should have disengaged from the front in Stalingrad to mount a strategic withdrawal. Hitler was stubborn though and he ordered his troops to stay and fight. The German marshal Goering guaranteed that his Luftwaffe would supply the troops at Stalingrad through the air, but as always he didn't keep his promises. The Wehrmacht tried relieve the Sixth Army through an offensive in December, but this Operation Winter Storm wasn't successful. The trapped Germans kept fighting all the way through January 1943 but it was to no avail. On the 2nd of February the Sixth Army capitulated.

The text above is very concise, far from complete and probably full of factual errors. For further reading I highly recommend Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad. It is a highly readable account of the battle. Movies to watch would either be Stalingrad or Enemy at the Gates. Also, if you have anything to add, please by all means do!
 
Last edited:

HellBilly

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2011
197
145
0
i dont know much either
i watched operation barbarossa through netflix streaming
most of it showed how barbarossa came to be.
the events that lead to it
 
S

strykpilot

Guest
Netflix does have the History Channels
Battlefield Detectives : Stalingrad . Haven't watch it yet ...

It's alright. There's not a ton of detail, but it has some good footage.
 

Cossack. Dmitri

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 12, 2011
77
50
0
The age old line is that people don't know a lot about the Eastern Front during the Second World War. This probably doesn't hold true for a couple of forum goers but I am going ahead and assume that some of you don't know about the historical backdrop of RO2. I am bored anyway and a write-up seems like a fun thing to do, so here it goes.

Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. This came as somewhat of a surprise because the two countries had closed a non-aggression pact two years earlier. The initial part of the German invasion went quite smoothly. Most contemporary commentaries (also on the Allied side) were that it was a question of kicking in the door and the rest of the Russian house would collapse. That didn't prove to be the case. The Red Army kept the Germans out of their capital Moscow and the strategical city of Leningrad. Tens of thousands of Soviet troops were sacrificed in the process, either as casualties or as prisoners of war. The line held though. Besides by their resilience the Russians were also helped by the weather. The autumn rains made campaigning hard for the Germans and the winter eventually halted their offensive. It even made a Russian counter-offensive possible, although that led to nothing more than a straightening out of the battle lines.

1942 brought a new German offensive. In stead of going for Moscow though, Hitler decided on a push in the south towards the Caucasus. This region between the Black and the Caspian Sea holds a lot of strategic resources, most importantly oil. Like the year before the offensive went well eventually until Hitler started to interfere with the day to day strategy. He decided he wanted to capture Stalingrad, in stead of simply cordoning it off from the German left flank as was the original idea. That proved to be a fatal mistake. The Germans started their assault on the city with an air bombardment. Some historians argue that this only helped the Red Army because all the ruins provided perfect cover for the defenders. True or not, the Russians were able to hold on, if only by the skin of their teeth. Hitler famously declared an early victory in September but he was being presumptuous. October came and went but Stalingrad was still in Russian hands.

Meanwhile the Russian leader Stalin had two of trumps up his sleeve. The first one were his endless reserves. The Soviet Union was a helluvalot bigger than Russia is now, so it could draw on its large population to serve as troops or work in factories thousands of miles to the east in the steppe. Another trump was general Zhukov, the Red Army equivalent of Eisenhower and Montgomery. Zhukov set up Operation Uranus, a pincer attack on the weak German flanks far away from Stalingrad. The two prongs of the Russian advance joined up at the end of November, trapping the German Sixth Army in the so called kettle.

At that point of the battle the Germans should have disengaged from the front in Stalingrad to mount a strategic withdrawal. Hitler was stubborn though and he ordered his troops to stay and fight. The German marshal Goering guaranteed that his Luftwaffe would supply the troops at Stalingrad through the air, but as always he didn't keep his promises. The Wehrmacht tried relieve the Sixth Army through an offensive in December, but this Operation Winter Storm wasn't successful. The trapped Germans kept fighting all the way through January 1943 but it was to no avail. On the 2nd of February the Sixth Army capitulated.

The text above is very concise, far from complete and probably full of factual errors. For further reading I highly recommend Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad. It is a highly readable account of the battle. Movies to watch would either be Stalingrad or Enemy at the Gates. Also, if you have anything to add, please by all means do!

Wikipedia is not a good place to get all your information... just saying.
 

The Algerian

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 29, 2011
680
187
0
You probably do not want to consider Enemy at the Gates a source or even slightly authentic.


Was it anyway a true thing that only one soldier out of two were given rifles?

Or that kids were used to put explosives on german tanks, while they were climbed down with a rope from a few floors upstairs? (This one's from the movie "The beast of war")
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
113
62
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
Was it anyway a true thing that only one soldier out of two were given rifles?

Or that kids were used to put explosives on german tanks, while they were climbed down with a rope from a few floors upstairs? (This one's from the movie "The beast of war")

No - that "Let's charge the enemy waving sticks while the NKVD BLocking Detachments machine-gun us" thing is (mostly) a myth. Blocking Detachments certainly existed and the NKVD certainly arrested (and shot) anyone retreating without orders on occasion. The Red Army was certainly caught without ammunition at times early in the war, due to the logistics being both badly organised and shot to pieces by the Germans. There were also instances (Fortress of Brest Litovsk as an example) where the Red Army didn't actually have time to issue weapons properly before the Germans arrived. But herding troops forward in Stalingrad without weapons? No, not really - they had enough spare to arm a few thousand "factory militia", plus there were large barracks in the city.

Kids sliding down ropes with explosives - new one on me :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norse Soldat

Killitingrillit

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 3, 2011
63
10
0
To attack Stalingrad was actually a brilliant idea, it's just the execution was poorly done. If the Nazis had wrestled total control of Stalingrad from the Soviets, it would have been a massive blow to the USSR and Stalin himself. What would be more embarrassing and humiliating to lose the city that carries your name? Also the capture would have smashed Soviet morale to pieces. Stalingrad had many factories that constructed tanks, arms and munitions. The Nazi's could take materials and factories to begin producing, if not repairing their own equipment. Although, this wouldn't have had a large affect on the Russian war machine, for they were shipping and transporting thousands of conscripts and vehicles from the deeper East.

Also had Hitler not have constantly interrupted and taken direct control of the campaign, the Nazi's could've been more successful on the Eastern front. His, no retreat, no surrender orders led to the downfall of many army groups and divisions. Had he let the 6th Army retreat, he would've saved over 100,000 men to regroup and attack. Also he took command of many operations, which failed, because he wouldn't take advice from his generals who were near the front, whereas he was way back in his Command Centre in Bavaria/Germany.
 

Shakermaker

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 2, 2011
131
36
0
Amsterdam
Wikipedia is not a good place to get all your information... just saying.

I'll link to pages in books the next time. Oh wait ...

Except for some dates I wrote that post from memory. I put the Wiki links in there so people could quickly look up stuff for reference. I bet everybody knows by now that Wikipedia isn't the best knowledge source. It is a place to start though.
 

Scrappa

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 1, 2011
217
54
0
26
England
Was it anyway a true thing that only one soldier out of two were given rifles?

Or that kids were used to put explosives on german tanks, while they were climbed down with a rope from a few floors upstairs? (This one's from the movie "The beast of war")

In the movie "The Beast" (thats what its called here for some reason) the guy said he used to throw molotov cocktails onto the tanks from above, not attach explosives and I guess that could have happened once or twice in the war.
 

Actin

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 19, 2009
1,453
250
0
Netherlands
I'll link to pages in books the next time. Oh wait ...

Except for some dates I wrote that post from memory. I put the Wiki links in there so people could quickly look up stuff for reference. I bet everybody knows by now that Wikipedia isn't the best knowledge source. It is a place to start though.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. ;)
My knowledge of the east during that time is bad to say the least.
 

The Algerian

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 29, 2011
680
187
0
No - that "Let's charge the enemy waving sticks while the NKVD BLocking Detachments machine-gun us" thing is (mostly) a myth. Blocking Detachments certainly existed and the NKVD certainly arrested (and shot) anyone retreating without orders on occasion. The Red Army was certainly caught without ammunition at times early in the war, due to the logistics being both badly organised and shot to pieces by the Germans. There were also instances (Fortress of Brest Litovsk as an example) where the Red Army didn't actually have time to issue weapons properly before the Germans arrived. But herding troops forward in Stalingrad without weapons? No, not really - they had enough spare to arm a few thousand "factory militia", plus there were large barracks in the city.

Kids sliding down ropes with explosives - new one on me :)

In the movie "The Beast" (thats what its called here for some reason) the guy said he used to throw molotov cocktails onto the tanks from above, not attach explosives and I guess that could have happened once or twice in the war.



Those two things sounded like a bit harsh, indeed (and an incredibly stupid way to loose soldiers at the same time)

Thanks for sharing, guys :)
 

Blinde

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 2, 2011
77
3
0
New Zealand
In the movie "The Beast" (thats what its called here for some reason) the guy said he used to throw molotov cocktails onto the tanks from above, not attach explosives and I guess that could have happened once or twice in the war.

In "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor, he cites an example of a soldier who had a molotov in each hand and was about to throw one when a bullet hit the bottle in his hand. On fire, he charged the German tank hugging his petrol soaked body to it, and smashing the other molotov cocktail onto the engine compartment which destroyed the tank.
 

grateful_dead

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 6, 2010
33
9
0
The battle of Stalingrad was important for Hitler as it tied down the bulk of the Red Army around the city. That gave time for Army Group Center to dig in and prepare for the main invasion. It delayed the inevitable for almost two years (operation bagration 1944).

Hitler always blamed his generals for not obeying his strategic orders and ultimately losing the war in the Ostfront. He was in favor of encircling the Red Army in pincer movements, thus destroying it.

The frontal assault against Moscow is one example of Wehrmacht generals going against Hitler's directives. After that failure the Red Army realized it could beat the Germans, even at the cost of countless lives in frontal assaults.
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
113
62
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
In "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor, he cites an example of a soldier who had a molotov in each hand and was about to throw one when a bullet hit the bottle in his hand. On fire, he charged the German tank hugging his petrol soaked body to it, and smashing the other molotov cocktail onto the engine compartment which destroyed the tank.

Panikhakha... (Nestor will correct my spelling).
 

Wesreidau

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 10, 2011
254
197
0
The battle of Stalingrad was important for Hitler as it tied down the bulk of the Red Army around the city. That gave time for Army Group Center to dig in and prepare for the main invasion. It delayed the inevitable for almost two years (operation bagration 1944).

Hitler always blamed his generals for not obeying his strategic orders and ultimately losing the war in the Ostfront. He was in favor of encircling the Red Army in pincer movements, thus destroying it.

The frontal assault against Moscow is one example of Wehrmacht generals going against Hitler's directives. After that failure the Red Army realized it could beat the Germans, even at the cost of countless lives in frontal assaults.

This sounds like the direct opposite of everything I ever heard before.