Urban Warfare in World War II

[James]

I'm talking about the Battle inside the city proper, not Seelow Heights or the battle for the Oder River. Most historians count the Battle of Berlin as beginning at the Oder River, which was some 60 klms from Berlin. For the sake of this thread, I count it as beginning when the Soviets actually breached the Seelow Heights defense area and attacked into the city proper, as this would be the Urban Warfare part of the fighting. Inside Berlin, the Soviets suffered about 20,000 dead, x3 wounded, in all, about 80,000 casualties. Yes, this is a massive loss of manpower, but considering how many troops the Soviets lost in the battles in other Urban environments like Sevastopol, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, this was relatively light, especially given the fact that this was the heart of Nazi Germany they were fighting for.

You should have said this in your very first post.

I'm curious about where you're getting your numbers too. Zhukov's forces are estimated to have suffered about 30K casualties fighting through the German positions on Seelow Heights before breaking through on 19 April. That figure is 250K higher than what you claim. If you mean only to count the casualties suffered by the Red Army after penetrating Berlin proper, that didn't start until 23 April. I find it questionable that the Soviets suffered 250K casualties in the four days (April 19-April 23) it took to complete the encirclement of Berlin.

Maybe you haven't learned this in writing high school papers, but hopefully you will, especially if you go to college. When writing an essay, paper, article, or opinion piece, define your terms at the very beginning. In this case (as you pointed out) historians around the world consider the Battle for Berlin to have started on 16 April. After 40 posts in this thread, you suddenly say that you only meant fighting in Berlin proper but then immediately say after breaching Seelow.

Define your terms, and get your facts organized.

[James]

I've wondered why they didn't try sticking suitable optics onto it to extend field sniping potential. I thought it could've perhaps been a forerunner to the kinds of weapons we see now for that purpose. Maybe they considered it, and thought it too specialized to make a big impact and justify development costs.

Anyhow, this is probably digressing a bit.

The optic/mount combinations that existed at the time weren't suitable. Recoil from just a couple of rounds could cause the scope to shift.

[Impartial Bias]

You should have said this in your very first post.

I'm curious about where you're getting your numbers too. Zhukov's forces are estimated to have suffered about 30K casualties fighting through the German positions on Seelow Heights before breaking through on 19 April. That figure is 250K higher than what you claim. If you mean only to count the casualties suffered by the Red Army after penetrating Berlin proper, that didn't start until 23 April. I find it questionable that the Soviets suffered 250K casualties in the four days (April 19-April 23) it took to complete the encirclement of Berlin.

Maybe you haven't learned this in writing high school papers, but hopefully you will, especially if you go to college. When writing an essay, paper, article, or opinion piece, define your terms at the very beginning. In this case (as you pointed out) historians around the world consider the Battle for Berlin to have started on 16 April. After 40 posts in this thread, you suddenly say that you only meant fighting in Berlin proper but then immediately say after breaching Seelow.

Define your terms, and get your facts organized.

James, no disrespect to you, but I thought I had made it clear by what I meant with the title of the thread, specifically, Urban Warfare. The battle from the Oder to the Seelow Heights defensive perimeter cannot be considered as Urban Warfare, because these battles were fought out in the countryside surrounding Berlin. 30k for the battle of Seelow seems about right, Zhukov claims about 29k in his memoirs. However, 250k is an outrageous for 4 days of battle, and is closer a casualty rate for the entire Berlin offensive (starting at the Oder). As a matter of fact, both Chuikov and Zhukov claim about 230-240k casualties in the Russian memoir book on the last days of the war that I have, and am using as my source. The reason I say that the Battle for Berlin began after the breach of the defenses at Seelow is because after Seelow, there were absolutely no German forces besides a couple of retreating platoons between Seelow and Berlin. The ground lay open for the Russian attack after this. As for the Battle in Berlin, Chuikov states 20k Soviet Troops killed, and x3 wounded. As for writing papers, I had to do 4 in the last month, 3 of them for AP classes. To be quite honest, I'm tired of the MLA and essay formatting, at least for a long while, and I hope you'll understand that I let my sourcing and cognitive abilities slack a little when I'm on the internet. If I didn't, I'd be in the madhouse right now. Also, sorry for my block of text, the enter key seems to not be working.

[That One Guy]

I was referring to entire operation, which started on 16 April and did indeed include the Battle for Seelow Heights.

Nowhere did I mention that Soviet soldiers weren't any good. I was pointing out the fact that while Impartial Bias stated that the Soviets had taken relatively light casualties in the battle for Berlin, and I thought 360K dead and wounded in 18 days wasn't light. That's 20K men a day; for the Red Army at the time, about two entire divisions, wiped out, every day.

Well, I knew that Impartial Bias was referring essentially to combat in the city proper, and not to the entire Battle of Berlin operation. And, I couldn't tell for sure from your earlier post whether or not you were thinking that the 360k Soviet casualties you cited had all been incurred in the urban fighting. And, I agree, 360k is definitely not light casualties. But, I also agree that 20-30k for taking the city of Berlin itself (if that's accurate) was probably not high in comparison to other major urban battles in the German-Soviet war.

I don't disagree with this statement, but it isn't clear to me why you included it. Up until just a few weeks before the Soviets launched their offensive, the Germans fought every bit as hard against the western allies as the did the Red Army. It was only after the Rhine was crossed and the Ruhr was encircled that the Germans started to surrender en masse in the west. By then, it was clear to the Germans who were actually fighting (though not Hitler and the idiots in the bunker) that the war was lost.

My understanding is that the German soldiers were at most times less apt to surrender to the Soviets than they were to Western allied forces—for all the well-known reasons. Although I don't have ready citations, I can't recall a single source stating otherwise. And, certainly, toward the end of the war, they were very desperate not to fall into Soviet hands. Now, I don't mean to imply that the Germans allowed themselves to be walked over in Western Europe. However, The Americans, in particular, had a reputation carrying over from WWI of treating captured enemy soldiers well. On the other hand, the Germans expected nothing but the worst if captured by Soviets (and mostly received it).

Soldiers who are less apt to surrender mean more combats to the last man, and more casualties for both sides. This is one important reason why there were still such high casualties amongst both Soviets and Germans even in their final battles. It wasn't because the Soviets hadn't developed effective urban combat techniques. I saw that you didn't mean to imply that; I'm just clarifying my earlier statement, since you asked.

The optic/mount combinations that existed at the time weren't suitable. Recoil from just a couple of rounds could cause the scope to shift.

Thanks. Yes, I'm sure that's true, and that's why I mentioned developments costs would probably be a factor in the decision if the idea had even occurred to them. I did presume that a complete solution wouldn't likely be right at hand.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

By the end of the show in Berlin, they had perfected their method of Urban Warfare- heavily saturating an area with artillery before rushing in with assault troops armed with submachineguns and hand grenades, mutually supported by tanks and assault guns to provide direct fire. The use of Sturmoviks to give precise fire on enemy strong points.

The Soviet art of war in the urban environment by 1945 was to suppress and destroy with indirect fire, then send in infantry supported by direct fires to seize the objective. However, if the infantry became bogged down, they would withdraw and the objective would be further reduced by indirect and indirect fires. This was the rule of thumb. It was industrial warfare based on superior firepower at the operational level, more than the tactical.

Which is fine and as it should be, but any attempt to portray the Soviets as superior at the tactical level is at best sycophantic. The example to utterly refute that fawning observation is the Battle for the Reichstag. Soviet assault troops crossed the start line at 0600 on the 30th April. It took a full day for the two Rifle Divisions (150th and 171st) to fight across Konigplatz Square and break into the building itself and another two days after that for two Rifle regiments (756th and 674th, with three more in direct support) to capture it. Positioned in the Reichstag building itself were approximately 550 assorted defenders, commanded by SS Obersturmfurher Gerhard Babick, of which approximately 250 were sailors.

And, to say that the Soviets won the Battle of Berlin based on operational or tactical superiority is to completely ignore the fact that the German armed forces defending Berlin were virtually a spent force. Certainly not the qualitive, nor quantitive match of the Soviet forces they faced. And yet, it still took Soviet forces 12 days to finish it.

You have also conveniently managed to ignore the fact that the Soviet army was greatly assisted in a direct sense by the round the clock bombing campaign conducted by the RAF and USAAF.

I'd also like to add that I think that the Red Army was best suited to Urban Warfare by the end of the war out of all combatant forces. My reasoning for this is the experience they gained from Sevastopol to Stalingrad and Leningrad, and from Stalingrad to each Fortress city they faced in their breakout into central Europe.

I'll add that you clearly want a Soviet wankfest thread, so you started you're own.

Shame, it could have been an interesting thread.

[Impartial Bias]

The Soviet art of war in the urban environment by 1945 was to suppress and destroy with indirect fire, then send in infantry supported by direct fires to seize the objective. However, if the infantry became bogged down, they would withdraw and the objective would be further reduced by indirect and indirect fires. This was the rule of thumb. It was industrial warfare based on superior firepower at the operational level, more than the tactical.

Which is fine and as it should be, but any attempt to portray the Soviets as superior at the tactical level is at best sycophantic. The example to utterly refute that fawning observation is the Battle for the Reichstag. Soviet assault troops crossed the start line at 0600 on the 30th April. It took a full day for the two Rifle Divisions (150th and 171st) to fight across Konigplatz Square and break into the building itself and another two days after that for two Rifle regiments (756th and 674th, with three more in direct support) to capture it. Positioned in the Reichstag building itself were approximately 550 assorted defenders, commanded by SS Obersturmfurher Gerhard Babick, of which approximately 250 were sailors.

And, to say that the Soviets won the Battle of Berlin based on operational or tactical superiority is to completely ignore the fact that the German armed forces defending Berlin were virtually a spent force. Certainly not the qualitive, nor quantitive match of the Soviet forces they faced. And yet, it still took Soviet forces 12 days to finish it.

You have also conveniently managed to ignore the fact that the Soviet army was greatly assisted in a direct sense by the round the clock bombing campaign conducted by the RAF and USAAF.



I'll add that you clearly want a Soviet wankfest thread, so you started you're own.

Shame, it could have been an interesting thread.

Jesus dude, way to kick the hostility level from 0 to 10. Aren't you a mod?

You mentioned that the Reichstag was an event in which the Soviets failed to employ their famous urban fighting doctrine. You obviously don't understand the strategic position the Soviets were in when they tried to take the Reichstag. The reason it took the Soviets so long to cross the Konigplatz was because they encountered heavy fire from the Reichstag, as well as the Knoll Opera house and Ministry of interior building, which were both heavily defended by an entrenched enemy, and had to be individually cleared. In addition to this, the Germans had set up antitank and machinegun positions on the Konigplatz itself, which also had to be cleared. Tanks, assault guns, and aircraft could not be easily brought to bear, because the Reichstag defense area was supported by the Berlin Zoo flak tower, which was 2 kms away, and knocked out many tanks as they moved down the Moltke bridge, and across the Konigplatz. Would you be willing to rush across an area not only heavily saturated with machinegun fire, but heavily bombarded by 20mm, 37mm, 88mm, 12.8cm guns?

Also, direct and indirect weapons would not really work against the Reichstag in this case, as the buildings walls were very thick. Also, the German defenders, after they had lost the Konigplatz, retreated into the interior of the building, and did not stay in areas with outside walls. This forced the Soviets to come in after them, and the defenders had the advantage of firepower, defensive positions, and the high ground once inside the building. They also had enough ammunition, water, food, and armaments to last them at least a week.

Also, the Battle for the Reichstag defense area began on April 28, with the crossing of the Moltke bridge.
And while I have no illusions as to the Germans being a spent force, they did have the advantage of being the defenders, as well as the fact that this was the heart of Germany they were fighting for, against a xenophobic enemy. You pit two xenophobic enemies against each other in a pitched last ditch battle, and you're sure to have a blood bath. Also, the remaining defenders of Berlin also mostly all fanatically believed in what they were fighting for, their lives, their families, and their ideology. They knew that if they were captured, they'd most likely spend the rest of their lives in a Gulag suffering. They knew that German civilians would be treated the same way and probably worse than they had treated Soviet civilians during Barbarossa. They also knew that if they lost the war, their ideology would be destroyed. This is why they fought so fiercely against the Soviets at impossible odds.

And above all else, I suggest you know me personally before you launch some sort of attack based on you "Soviet wanking" comment. By your headline, I assume you are an ANZAC Veteran. Foremost, thank you for your service. My great great grandfather fought at Gallipoli. Also, my 5 of my family members fought on the western allied side during World War II. I appreciate their service, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the service of Soviet veterans as well. For the purposes of this thread, I said I thought the Soviets were the most adept at Urban Fighing compared to the other armies that fought in World War II, because, lets face it, they had the most experience, and fought the bloodiest Urban Battles, and had the best combat doctrine and equipment tailored for it.

Finally, the only wanker here is you, because you are seeing what you want to see. Notice, that my very first post that created this thread was on the Battle of Westerplatz, which was fought between the Germans and Polish. Not the Battle of Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Konigsberg, or Berlin, which would have been the easier topics and play into your "Soviet wanker" theory. And damn me for having an opinion, right?

Thanks for your time.

[Impartial Bias]

The Battle of Arnhem is one of the more interesting Urban Battles in World War II, especially considering that a small unit of lightly armed paratroopers were able to hold onto their positions for 5 days on a narrow strip of land overlooking the Arnhem Bridge facing a far superior force, while, the defenders of the Oosterbeek perimeter were able to hold out for 9 days in generally the same conditions, although the fighting around Oosterbeek was a little more fluid.
Anyone have any interesting pictures/information to share on the subject?

[KoTeMoRe]

1. Political goal. - Big no no exposing it to saturation with indirect fire.
2. Given the impracticability of all but the Moltke bridge the maneouvering space was close to non-existent for the whole of the 29th April, until the 30th, and yet the Soviets raised the first flag on the 30th of April.
3. The tactical positioning of the Germans ensured that there could not be an artillery support without fratricides.

For the limited permieter of defense as was the Area around the Reichstage the Germans defending it were not a spent force (Brest comes to mind as a comparable).

[Impartial Bias]

1. Political goal. - Big no no exposing it to saturation with indirect fire.
2. Given the impracticability of all but the Moltke bridge the maneouvering space was close to non-existent for the whole of the 29th April, until the 30th, and yet the Soviets raised the first flag on the 30th of April.
3. The tactical positioning of the Germans ensured that there could not be an artillery support without fratricides.

For the limited permieter of defense as was the Area around the Reichstage the Germans defending it were not a spent force (Brest comes to mind as a comparable).

Thank you.

Also, I would like to mention that events where it takes all day to secure an area or objective still happen. Let's shoot back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It took the First Brigade of the Third Infantry division all day to secure the area around Baghdad Airport. Even though the First Brigade had all the advantages of being a modern army, facing an inferior Army in it's death throes, fierce fighting went on through the morning and into the night.

[That One Guy]

As for the "spent force" assessment of the Berlin garrison, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. It was certainly ad hoc. However, I know that there were quite a few SS there, including some hardened veterans. Some others amongst the SS were foreign volunteers. These were hardcore ideological fascists who were traitors in their homelands, and who had no choice other than a fight to the death. They were caught between a rock and hard place.

On the other end of the spectrum there were cannon fodder like the Volksstrum. Of course, with so many panzerfaust at hand, even these could be a menace. And, in between, you had some regular Heer. Mixed in throughout were plenty of die-hard, brainwashed nuts who somehow still believed in "final victory." Quite a stew!

[mas-36]

I think the civilian underground movements during the Warsaw and Paris uprisings deserve special mention. Not knowing too much on the Warsaw uprising's effect on the German troops there, perhaps in part of the Red Army's reluctance to help the Polish resistance, but in Paris it was well demonstrated that while a civilian uprising is always out-gunned, local populations still have the advantage of home-turf knowledge, even if the enemy occupiers were there for a few years. In the book "Is Paris Burning", there are several vivid accounts of how lesser armed partisans being able to take control of several portions of the city by gaining access to the rooftops and hurling primitive explosives and Molotov cocktails, thus channeling the German's escape route via main roads where they became targets for Allied planes and oncoming Allied troops. It was said that several blocks of the city could be accessible via rooftop-hoping.

[Impartial Bias]

As for the "spent force" assessment of the Berlin garrison, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. It was certainly ad hoc. However, I know that there were quite a few SS there, including some hardened veterans. Some others amongst the SS were foreign volunteers. These were hardcore ideological fascists who were traitors in their homelands, and who had no choice other than a fight to the death. They were caught between a rock and hard place. On the other end of the spectrum there were cannon fodder like the Volksstrum. Of course, with so many panzerfaust at hand, even these could be a menace. And, in between, you had some regular Heer. Mixed in throughout were plenty of die-hard, brainwashed nuts who somehow still believed in "final victory." Quite a stew!

Yeah, that's my understanding of the situation as well. Also, regarding the Volksturm, many of them were WWI veterans, and although old, many knew their way around weapons and small unit tactics. Also, recall the last photographs of Adolf Hitler, in which he is pinning Iron Crosses to Hitler Youth fighters, some of whom had knocked out 10+ tanks. The Urban fighting in Berlin gave a significant advantage to the defenders, who wreaked havo with what weapons they had. Especially given the use of the Panzerfaust in the confined spaces inside the city. Pit too highly ideological xenophobic forces against each other in a pitched last ditch battle, and you're sure to have a bloodbath.

[James]

Also, I would like to mention that events where it takes all day to secure an area or objective still happen. Let's shoot back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It took the First Brigade of the Third Infantry division all day to secure the area around Baghdad Airport. Even though the First Brigade had all the advantages of being a modern army, facing an inferior Army in it's death throes, fierce fighting went on through the morning and into the night.

In modern warfare the U.S. and our Allies frequently take a little bit of extra time to use technology and vastly superior firepower to destroy the enemy and minimize our own casualties. Comparing the fact that it took some time for the 3rd ID to secure Baghdad Airport with the time it took the Red Army to capture the Reichstag isn't really valid.

[James]

As for the "spent force" assessment of the Berlin garrison, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. It was certainly ad hoc. However, I know that there were quite a few SS there, including some hardened veterans. Some others amongst the SS were foreign volunteers. These were hardcore ideological fascists who were traitors in their homelands, and who had no choice other than a fight to the death. They were caught between a rock and hard place.

On the other end of the spectrum there were cannon fodder like the Volksstrum. Of course, with so many panzerfaust at hand, even these could be a menace. And, in between, you had some regular Heer. Mixed in throughout were plenty of die-hard, brainwashed nuts who somehow still believed in "final victory." Quite a stew!

Many of the SS didn't fight the Red Army. Instead they roamed around hanging other German men they didn't like the looks of. Also, it's important to consider that number of men alone is only a part of the equation. Six or eight hundred random guys given rifles and told "Okay, you are now called Kamfgruppe XYZ" doesn't make them an effective military unit. It makes them an armed rabble.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Jesus dude, way to kick the hostility level from 0 to 10. Aren't you a mod?

Welcome to the real world.

You mentioned that the Reichstag was an event in which the Soviets failed to employ their famous urban fighting doctrine.

No I didn't. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

You obviously don't understand the strategic position the Soviets were in when they tried to take the Reichstag. The reason it took the Soviets so long to cross the Konigplatz was because they encountered heavy fire from the Reichstag, as well as the Knoll Opera house and Ministry of interior building, which were both heavily defended by an entrenched enemy, and had to be individually cleared. In addition to this, the Germans had set up antitank and machinegun positions on the Konigplatz itself, which also had to be cleared. Tanks, assault guns, and aircraft could not be easily brought to bear, because the Reichstag defense area was supported by the Berlin Zoo flak tower, which was 2 kms away, and knocked out many tanks as they moved down the Moltke bridge, and across the Konigplatz. Would you be willing to rush across an area not only heavily saturated with machinegun fire, but heavily bombarded by 20mm, 37mm, 88mm, 12.8cm guns?

Firstly, you clearly don't understand the difference between tactical, operational and strategic.

Secondly, you're saying the reason the much vaunted (by you) Soviet urban tactics took so long to overcome the Reichstag...is because the genrmas defended it???

Also, direct and indirect weapons would not really work against the Reichstag in this case, as the buildings walls were very thick. Also, the German defenders, after they had lost the Konigplatz, retreated into the interior of the building, and did not stay in areas with outside walls. This forced the Soviets to come in after them, and the defenders had the advantage of firepower, defensive positions, and the high ground once inside the building. They also had enough ammunition, water, food, and armaments to last them at least a week.

But none of that mattered because your Soviet untermensch were oh so very well equipped with PPSH-41/43 and SVT-40's. Plus they "had the best combat doctrine and equipment tailored for it".

Funny how you constantly manage to contradict yourself. On the other hand, you are a child.

They also had enough ammunition, water, food, and armaments to last them at least a week.

Where's the source evidence for this statement?

Also, the Battle for the Reichstag defense area began on April 28, with the crossing of the Moltke bridge.

No. It began on the 30th at 0600.

And while I have no illusions as to the Germans being a spent force, they did have the advantage of being the defenders, as well as the fact that this was the heart of Germany they were fighting for, against a xenophobic enemy. You pit two xenophobic enemies against each other in a pitched last ditch battle, and you're sure to have a blood bath. Also, the remaining defenders of Berlin also mostly all fanatically believed in what they were fighting for, their lives, their families, and their ideology. They knew that if they were captured, they'd most likely spend the rest of their lives in a Gulag suffering. They knew that German civilians would be treated the same way and probably worse than they had treated Soviet civilians during Barbarossa. They also knew that if they lost the war, their ideology would be destroyed. This is why they fought so fiercely against the Soviets at impossible odds.

Yeah, in general not so much. A minority for sure, but the vast majority? This was the last 5 days of the war after all.

Thanks for your time.

No. Thanks for yours, considering the way you act it'll be limited on this forum.