Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (6) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romanian contribution to the shortening of the war
inahurry
Posted: September 07, 2003 10:24 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



QUOTE
How would you feel if you knew that your \"ally\" is taking away your supplies and even your victories (see Budapest for example)?


Very true. I wouldn't like to find myself in the place of Romanian commanders then, it was furiously humiliating. If at least history would do them (and the men who fell there) justice.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: September 08, 2003 03:14 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Paulus,
there were fewer casualties than in the Eastern Campaign (169,822 vs. 624,720). Only one unit was surrounded and captured (4th Infantry Division, which lacked any AT weapons, thanks to the Soviet allies, who had confiscated it :| ). Generally the Romanian units were used, after Transylvania had been reoccupied, in difficult terrain and weather conditions in the Slovakian Mountains (which were very favorable for the defense) or in Operation Budapest (which was yet another Hell on Earth). They were expandable in the eyes of the Soviet marshals and, anyway, the Royal Army needed to be destroyed, one way or the other.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: September 12, 2003 11:10 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



I found that:

By opening widely the "Focsani Gate" - and, through it, the gates of whole Central Europe along the Danube River Valley - also, those of the Balkans - the Romanian volte face gave to the Red Army the possibility to use what Sir B.H. Liddell Hart considered to be "the widest open flank ever known in the history of modern wars".
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Geto-Dacul
Posted: September 12, 2003 03:25 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



dragos wrote :

QUOTE
By opening widely the \"Focsani Gate\" - and, through it, the gates of whole Central Europe along the Danube River Valley - also, those of the Balkans - the Romanian volte face gave to the Red Army the possibility to use what Sir B.H. Liddell Hart considered to be \"the widest open flank ever known in the history of modern wars\".


And should we be proud of it?
PMUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: September 14, 2003 10:45 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



I try to expose facts and emphasize the contribution of Romanian army on this front, in the conditions that Romania was refused the co-beligerant status at the end of the war. This is the history either you like it or not. To give you something for your taste: the defensive operation of the 4th Army during September 1944, fulfilled exclusively by Romanian troops and under Romanian command, was a materpiece of military strategy.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Geto-Dacul
Posted: September 14, 2003 02:58 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



dragos wrote :

QUOTE
To give you something for your taste: the defensive operation of the 4th Army during September 1944, fulfilled exclusively by Romanian troops and under Romanian command, was a materpiece of military strategy.


Yep, but the whole campaign in Northern Transylvania cost us the huge losses of 62.000 men. Compare it with the liberation of Bessarabia...

Getu'
PMUsers Website
Top
Bernard Miclescu
Posted: September 27, 2003 03:02 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 53
Joined: July 22, 2003



Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.

bm
PMMSN
Top
Dénes
Posted: September 27, 2003 03:37 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



[quote]Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.[/quote]
More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.

Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Bernard Miclescu
Posted: September 27, 2003 04:15 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 53
Joined: July 22, 2003



Ok major, understood.
bm[/quote]
PMMSN
Top
C-2
Posted: September 27, 2003 08:46 pm
Quote Post


General Medic
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 2453
Member No.: 19
Joined: June 23, 2003



QUOTE
QUOTE
Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.

More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.

Dénes

Yes but the Rom.army that fought in the early tays of the war was better than the Rom army that ended the war!
That's also a criterium to the hight nr of losses in the western front.
PMUsers Website
Top
Geto-Dacul
Posted: September 28, 2003 02:12 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



Dénes wrote :

[quote]More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.
[/quote]

That is to show that the Hungarians inflicted heavy losses to Romanian troops... But the Romanians had virtually no armour, in comparison with Hungarian/German (Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist troops :P :lol: ) troops.

And the Soviet attitude was very "determinant"... See Oarba de Mures...

C-2 wrote :

[quote]Yes but the Rom.army that fought in the early tays of the war was better than the Rom army that ended the war!
That's also a criterium to the hight nr of losses in the western front.[/quote]

That is not exactely true... Romanian Army of 1944 was better equiped and trained than in 1941.
PMUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: September 28, 2003 05:29 am
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



[quote]the whole campaign in Northern Transylvania cost us [Rumanians] the huge losses of 62.000 men.[/quote]
The most bloody battles between Axis (i.e., Hungarian and German) and Allied (i.e., Rumanian and Soviet) troops were in southern Transylvania. See, for example, the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, between Sept. 5-Oct.8.

Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: September 28, 2003 05:36 am
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.
[/quote]

That is to show that the Hungarians inflicted heavy losses to Romanian troops... But the Romanians had virtually no armour, in comparison with Hungarian/German (Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist troops :P :lol: ) troops.[/quote]
Indeed, the Rumanian troops did not have effective armour assistance in Sept. 1944. However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.

As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"? :lol: :roll:

Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Geto-Dacul
Posted: September 28, 2003 08:01 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



Dénes wrote :

[quote]However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.
[/quote]

Yes, but only the Soviets... Few Romanian units were subordinated to Soviet armour formations.

[quote]As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?
[/quote]

It was only to show how absurde can propaganda be with the "Horthyst-Fascist epitet, when Horthy no more in power!!! :lol: ... :wink:

Getu'
PMUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: September 28, 2003 08:18 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.
[/quote]

Yes, but only the Soviets... Few Romanian units were subordinated to Soviet armour formations.[/quote]

It appears that the 4th Rumanian Army had an armoured element integrated in it in Sept. 1944, namely 'Detasamentul Blindat' (Armoured Detachment), under command of Lt.-Col. Gh. Matei. This unit was equipped with 16 tanks.

[quote]As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?
[/quote]

It was only to show how absurde can propaganda be with the "Horthyst-Fascist epitet, when Horthy no more in power!!! :lol: ... :wink:[/quote]
Of course such labels were/are absurd, I know.
However, it's interesting to read that current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels (horthyst, or fascist), used extensively during Communism (Remember Gen. dr. Ilie Ceausescu's "history" books?)

Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (6) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0257 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]