Two Men per Gun in WW1 Russia?

[attackfighter]

Well, in Junior High and High School my friends would occasionally start talking about the world wars and stuff. Amongst various ill-concieved opinions and 'facts' (one guy always said that Stalin was a military genius, for example) they'd mention that the Russians did the 2-men-1-gun thing. Maybe the rumour did originate from Enemies at the Gate, but now I think it's just a common myth like any of the ones on Myth Busters.

I'm mainly wondering if there's any evidense or counter evidense to support this, because I'll often encounter vague statements like

It has indeed been reported by men in the field during WW II that men were sent into battle unarmed

and I don't know whether or not they were just pulled out of someones butt.

Also, I'm mainly talking about World War 1, not 2, since in 2 the USSR was one of the major producers and would've definately been able to produce enough weaponry (unless I'm gravely mistaken). In World War 1 I can see the possibility of them having some major supply problems, or just drafting too many troops- although I find it absurd that they would choose to transport so many troops while neglecting their weapons, as that would leave the troops pretty much useless.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, in WWII they no doubt had the industrial capacity to make all the rifles they needed, but that is not quite the same thing as having the infrastructure to distribute the rifles everywhere they were needed, and there may have been situations where they told rushed-to-the-front-line troops to arm themselves from the dead.

I don't know if this actually happened, but it's more likely than the USSR simply not having enough rifles over all.

 

[Agent327]

Wrong. T-34 entered service in 1940. The Germans only began encountering large numbers of them around the Minsk area because the Russians realized they could not hold the far West if the Germans invaded, and thus did not put their best units there.

I was aware of that - hence my careful phrasing. (The number of T-34s encountered during the 1941 campaign phase wasn't what initiated the development of the Panther, for instance, but the sheer appearance of such a superior tank.) Their effectiveness was further hampered by lack of training, poor communication and the (re-)implementation of an infantry support rôle for the forward defense areas.

Actually reinforcements began coming West long before that, and the majority of reinforcements during the second half of 1941 were raised from the countryside or the cities directly: Zhukov organized nearly 500,000 new soldiers in only 3 weeks' time, during his preparations for defense around Moscow.Why would they organize units with no firearms, and why, with such huge industry as they had, not be able to arm every soldier and then some? It makes absolutely no sense.

The magnitude of the initial Soviet defeat was appalling. According to German estimates, 673,000 soldiers were captured by the Wehrmacht in both pockets,[29] although recent research suggests a somewhat lower, but still enormous figure of 514,000 prisoners, reducing Soviet strength by 41 %.[30]

Also, have you thought about the logistical problem of raising half a million raw recruits in 3 weeks time? For the defense of Moscow almost every able-bodied citizen was put to work (except the ones that had fled the city following the withdrawal of most of the government).

Despite the defeat near Aleksino, the Wehrmacht still possessed an overall superiority in manpower and land forces over the Red Army. The German divisions committed to the final assault on Moscow numbered 943,000 men, 1,500 tanks, while Soviet forces were reduced to a shadow of their former selves, with barely 500,000 men, 890 tanks.[15] [...] Although the Wehrmacht's offensive had been stopped, German intelligence estimated that Soviet forces had no more reserves left and thus would be unable to stage a counteroffensive. This estimate proved wrong, as Stalin transferred fresh divisions from Siberia and the Far East, relying on intelligence from his spy, Richard Sorge, which indicated that Japan would not attack the Soviet Union. The Red Army had accumulated a 58-division reserve by early December,[34] when the offensive proposed by Zhukov and Vasilevsky was finally approved by Stalin.[54] However, even with these new reserves, Soviet forces committed to the operation numbered only 1,100,000 men,[52] only slightly outnumbering the Wehrmacht.

Also, even if sufficient rifles were available, that doesn't necessarily imply all front troops were equipped with them. Apart from logistics, attention for troops in the field was restricted to Spartan discipline mainly (which is putting it mildly) and especially during 1941-'42 training of fresh troops was minimal at best. Apart from the already mentioned lack of rifles, training with wooden guns was reported as well. Naturally such incidences would not rank high in Soviet propaganda or historiography (which even denied such simple facts as the existence of a secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact).

 

[say1988]

or they kill some guy on the other side and nick their gun

Why risk facing a guy from the other side, when an unsuspecting armed man is right beside you.....
If this every happened on a large scale with conscripts I expect you would find lots of fighting.

I know but as he admits he is very fuzzy on where he even heard the rumour, I bet it originated form that flick

Nah, it has been around before that, I remember hearing that they armed whole units with icepicks in the first world war, but even when I was like 6 I didn't believe it (though quite possible it happened on a limited basis).

And it is true that after Barbarossa it may have been quite difficult to equip (between production, transport, and distribution of hundreds of thousands of weapons you are looking at lots of time and complications) all the new recruits with rifles immediately.

 

[Yeekim]

LOL, this thread just reminded me of a joke.

Old US sergeant is training a troop of rookie marines:
"Listen carefully, dolts. First, 'em Ruskies have special forces in the navy. Each one of those men can take out three of the likes of you. Then they have airborne special troops. Each of these guys can take out six of you. And finally, they have something called stroibats*, where troopers are such vicious, hardcore sons-of-. .. .. .. .. .es they aren't even given weapons!"

*

Spoiler :

auxiliary construction units, usually made up of the least educated and worst disciplined conscripts, by and large Central Asians.

 

[RalofTyr]

I know but as he admits he is very fuzzy on where he even heard the rumour, I bet it originated form that flick

I don't think it originated from that flick, but was used as a popular allusion.


The first scene when they arrive at Stalingrad was the best part of the movie.

Then it went downhill from there.

 

[taper]

Sure, but the better grab a lot of ammo too. The German 7.92mm won't take 7.62mm; well, maybe, but the accuracy will be horrible.

You made me curious. I could chamber a 7.92(aka 8mm Mauser) in my Mosin M81/30, and a 7.62x54R in my K98k, but the bolt wouldn't close on either one. The K98k extractor wouldn't grab the 7.62, and I had push a cleaning rod down the barrel to remove the round. The 8mm fell out of the Mosin when turned up. I wouldn't think about trying to fire either mixed combo even if I could.

Both rifles are actual WWII vintage, and are slightly updated versions of WWI rifles. Ammo is modern manufacture. And yes, you read that right, the "bigger" round was loose in the "smaller" chamber. There's much more to a cartridge than caliber.

 

[Pim]

In WW2 russian soldiers where send to the battlefield without a gun. This aint because a shortage of guns but because:
A) Stalin was a idiot. He didn't trust anyone so he held militairy command for himself and he really, and i really mean really sucked(excuse my french) at it. Further more he didn't gave any crap about his people but wanted to win the war so it was more efficient(and less humanitarian) to go for tanks and airplanes(cause he had a bigger shortage on those fronts).

B) Ten million russians died in ww2..... and then realise they won the war from the germans.

we ain't talking about producing thousands af guns(and ofcourse bullets(which are the real difficulty for keeping up in production) but of more then a thousand times a thousand guns.

 

[say1988]

The Soviets produced over 17 million 91/30 Mosin-Nagants during the war. In 1941 over a million SVTs were produced, before changing most production to cheaper and simpler Mosin Nagants.
Add to that over 6 million PPSH's. Ammunition production also wasn't a problem. The only time production was in question was right after the invasion when Western factories went offline and new ones weren't going yet and a full war footing wasn't established.
This is addition to various other production (other Mosin Nagant models, and weapons produced in lower numbers), weapons received from Allied countries, captured German weapons (either using German munitions or retooled).

The biggest problem was always shipping the massive quantities to where they were needed when they were needed.

B) Ten million russians died in ww2..... and then realise they won the war from the germans.

Well, a significant number of those died as POWs (a quarter to a third from my information). And the Germans lost nearly half that number. Of KIA/MIA Germans suffered about 2 thirds of Soviet losses.
Compared to the Western Front where the ratio was the same or worse for the Allies.
Just throwing out numbers can be very misleading.

Really, if this happened I seriously doubt it was on a large scale.

 

[Pim]

Just throwing out numbers can be very misleading.

indeed it can but in this case i thought it would give a example of the great numbers we are talking about.
As i arguead in my first point, it was mostly Stalin's briliance. In Army combat he didn't use the militairy philosophy of 2 men per gun but in urban area's where cilivilian men had to fight(through compulsory militairy service) they did use this 'tactic'. But to be honest i never really looked into it and i think the idea of logistics from say1988 is a pretty solid one. The idea came forth out of need and not because it was a possibilty so i agree with say1988 on the presumption that it probably wasn't on a large scale.

 

[say1988]

OK, I see your point, and I jumped the gun there.

 

[Agent327]

From http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/w/ww1/russia.htm:

World War I — Russia

Russia entered the first world war with the largest army in the world, standing at 1,400,000 soldiers; when fully mobilized the Russian army expanded to over 5,000,000 soldiers (though at the outset of war Russia could not arm all its soldiers, having a supply of 4.6 million rifles).

From http://www.gunlab.com.ru/history.html:

And of cou[r]se Red Army was short on ammo and weapons. Even before the revolution tzar's factories were able to supply 1/3 of all needs of the old Russian army during WWI. With tremendous efforts people worked to produce enough weapons. Izhevsk factories created 12,500 rifles in Jul 1919 and at the end of the year they were producing more than 20,000 rifles per month. Totally in 1918-1920 years communists manufactured 1,298,173 rifles, 15,044 machineguns and 175,115 revolvers; repaired 900,000 rifles and 5,200 machineguns. Totally they created 840,200,000 cartridges.

For WW II, check the 1941-'45 tables on p. 12 of The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War, 1941-45 by Steven J. Zaloga, showing a shortage of rifles (even when combined with other guns) compared to total number of troops for Rifle Divisions specifically here: http://books.google.nl/books?id=P7Y...esult&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Also note this quote from the same page: "The accompanying charts show the shift in rifle division equipment through the war. However, few divisions in combat actually reached these levels."

With reference to the realism of Enemy At The Gates (originally a book) and shortage of rifles, check here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071201131233AABX6U6

 

[rilnator]

Well, in Junior High and High School my friends would occasionally start talking about the world wars and stuff. Amongst various ill-concieved opinions and 'facts' (one guy always said that Stalin was a military genius, for example) they'd mention that the Russians did the 2-men-1-gun thing. Maybe the rumour did originate from Enemies at the Gate, but now I think it's just a common myth like any of the ones on Myth Busters.

Where would we be without those 2 gay guys on mythbusters?

Maybe they could look into some of those great WW2 myths like: why didn't Jude Law speak with a Russian accent during the movie? Why didn't the Red Army try and save the Polish home army? And why didn't the conspirators in July 1944 just shoot Adolf Hitler at point blank range?

 

[frekk]

Apart from the already mentioned lack of rifles, training with wooden guns was reported as well.

That's ok, many recruits in the British Army, and all recruits in the Home Guard, were training with broomsticks in the summer of 1940.

Heck, Guderian was training his panzer troops with papier mache tanks in 1935. The cavalry officers used to show up for a laugh.

 

[Agent327]

I don't really see how that's "OK"; training with wooden rifles won't do much good in combat situations. Training with "papier maché" (don't you mean cardboard?) tanks however doesn't stand in the way of training armour tactics, although again it's not much of a training; things were different by September 1939 however, I should think. At any rate, these examples are hardly relevant, as logistics was, historically speaking, the Russian army's achilles heel. But at least they confirm - if anyone doubted this - that the problem wasn't confined to Russia.

 

[say1988]

I don't really see how that's "OK"; training with wooden rifles won't do much good in combat situations.

Most training doesn't use live rounds. They could do all the drill training and practice maneuvers. Maneuver and tactics is as much a part of infantry combat as armoured warfare.

There would have been rifles (not necessarily standard frontline weapons) for firing practice when needed.

 

[Dachs]

But at least they confirm - if anyone doubted this - that the problem wasn't confined to Russia.

Lack of availability of combat weapons to all trainees doesn't imply a lack of availability of combat weapons to combat troops.

 

[frekk]

training with wooden rifles won't do much good in combat situations.

You can learn everything you need to know with a broomstick with the exception of actually firing your rifle in different positions. If paper tanks can teach tankers how to fight, then wooden rifles can teach infantry how to fight. Besides that, this was a generation closer to the farm and many were already fairly decent at marksmanship from the use of civilian firearms.

 

[Agent327]

Lack of availability of combat weapons to all trainees doesn't imply a lack of availability of combat weapons to combat troops.

I would say it's a clear indication of a shortage of handheld guns in general though.

You can learn everything you need to know with a broomstick with the exception of actually firing your rifle in different positions. If paper tanks can teach tankers how to fight, then wooden rifles can teach infantry how to fight. Besides that, this was a generation closer to the farm and many were already fairly decent at marksmanship from the use of civilian firearms.

I don't think many agricultural workers practice shooting with rifles in Europe and I'm quite certain that most urban workers don't. Practicing with wooden guns won't prepare you for combat, just for drill. Even practice with actual guns doesn't prepare you for the rigours of war. Paper tanks can't teach tank crews how to fight, as all tanks require maintenance - just as rifles do. What all this can do is discipline your raw recruits. (And if that fails, you can shoot them for desertion.)

 

[say1988]

There are many aspects of infantry combat, and this is just a part of infantry life that they need to be taught.
Tactics, drill, establishing positions, communications, etc... can all be taught without weapons. Basic weapon maintenance can be taught with non-combat weapons (basic rifle practice was often done with weapons such as .22s, this can be viewed favourably as it is easier to handle than a military rifle). Yes they should be familiarized with their combat weapons and finish training with them, before going to the front, but that is just a small part of training.
But yes, ideally they would have enough rifles for all recruits from the start to familiarize them more with maintenance and such.

Lack of availability of combat weapons to all trainees doesn't imply a lack of availability of combat weapons to combat troops.

No, but it indicates that they are in short supply, so when they suddenly raise armies of hundreds of thousands of men, weapon supplies will likely be stretched.
This is the case the British faced, especially after the debacle in France. The US fell back on weapons in production for export and stockpiled Springfields as a stopgap.