Environmental factors play a massive role in warfare, and terrain is a major aspect
of any land environment. Some terrains are more favourable than others, and some change
drastically depending on the climate, season, and even time of day. While terrain can, of
course, affect aerial and naval warfare, especially when it comes to bombardments and such, it's
the army that's up close and personal with the ground. In other words, soldiers, beasts
of burden, and ground vehicles suffer the most while traversing or fighting on crappy
terrain. In this video, we're going to discuss some of the worst terrains endured by the
soldiers of the Second World War.
Environmental factors play a massive role in warfare, and terrain is a major aspect
of any land environment. Some terrains are more favourable than others, and some change
drastically depending on the climate, season, and even time of day. While terrain can, of
course, affect aerial and naval warfare, especially when it comes to bombardments and such, it's
the army that's up close and personal with the ground. In other words, soldiers, beasts
of burden, and ground vehicles suffer the most while traversing or fighting on crappy
terrain. In this video, we're going to discuss some of the worst terrains endured by the
soldiers of the Second World War. "It was only with difficulty that we could breathe
through a handkerchief held in front of the face and perspiration poured from our bodies
in the unendurable heat." Hellish temperatures, dust, and vast distances were incredibly taxing
on vehicles too, meaning maintenance was a constant uphill battle. As per Desert Warfare:
German Experiences in World War II by Major General Alfred Toppe, "Dust had the greatest
effect on motor vehicles [...]. [T]he average lifetime of a Volkswagen engine in the desert
was only 12,000-14,000 kilometres in comparison with 50,000-70,000 kilometres in other theatres
of war. [...] This was due not only to the effects of dust but also [...] to the necessity
of driving long distances cross-country in low gears." Flies, fleas, and other insects
also hounded soldiers in the millions, and there were scorpions, snakes, and diseases
to contend with too. Desert may not be the worst terrain of World War II, but they were,
overall, logistical nightmares.
Deserts of ice and snow are, in many ways, far worse than sandy deserts. While ice could
actually improve troop movement in some situations, moving through the snow was a job best left
for the Finns and their ski infantry. Generally, cold-weather warfare favours the defending
force, which can dig in to maintain warmth and lay waste to an attacking force as they
contend with the debilitating terrain. Without special cold-weather lubricants and antifreeze,
vehicles and weapons can jam up, and without proper shelter and clothing, soldiers can
fall prey to fun things like hypothermia and frostbite. Snowfall reduces visibility, and
mines don't work all that well when padded with snow, either. Blizzards and strong winds
can disrupt radio transmission and thwart aerial recon. Perhaps the most famous example
of a cold-weather conflict during World War II is the Winter War, which was fought between
the Finns and the Soviets in Finland. On the defensive, the Finns had the terrain on their
side, and they knew it. They attacked Soviet field kitchens to deny them hot meals, and
also rotated out their troops, allowing them some respite from the cold, whereas the Soviets
just had to suck it up or freeze to death. And a lot of them did, too, with sickness
and frostbite accounting for about a third of their 188,000 to 207,000 sick or wounded
casualties throughout the conflict. While frozen lakes were easier to traverse than
snow or forests, the Finns made special mines they could embed into or under ice sheets
to blast open the ice and subject the Soviets to the deathly cold waters beneath. When the
Soviets sought another way round, often via forests, the Finns ripped them apart with
well-placed machine-gun nests and snipers. It took the Soviets a few months to figure
out how useful winter camouflage was, too, after which they swapped their khaki uniforms
for white ones. In the words of John Langdon-Davies, a British war correspondent present in the
Winter War, "Every acre of [Finland's] surface was created to be the despair of an attacking
military force."
When ice and snow thaw in the warmer seasons, they can create a slushy, muddy terrain that
Russians refer to as Rasputitsa, which means something along the lines of "time without
roads." Expanses of mud, swamps, marshes, and any other boggy terrain, in general, have
to be one of the worst terrains endured by the soldiers of the Second World War. It was
especially terrible on the Eastern Front. The mud sucked boots, hooves, wheels, and
tracks down into it, bringing ground movement to a grinding halt and gifting soldiers trench
foot. As with snow, boggy terrains granted an advantage to the defenders, who could cut
their enemy down while they were slogging it through the mud. In the words of American
historian Lee Baker, "Most Soviet roads were unpaved ... Extremely thick and clinging mud
made even the simplest of movement nearly impossible and exhausted men, animals, machines,
and fuel. Vehicles with wheels could move only if dragged by tracked vehicles such as
tanks, and animals began dying by the thousands from overwork. The incredible effort required
just to move slowed the entire front to a crawl." Advancing forces prayed for the weather
to get colder so everything would freeze over and they could walk and drive on the ice.
Good old Rasputitsa played a critical role in the Battle of Moscow. The battle kicked
off early in October 1941, but it wasn't until mid-November that the terrain froze over,
allowing the Germans to advance at their usual speed. That first month-and-a-half of cold
sludge bought the Soviets the time they needed to fall back, regroup, and ultimately smash
the German offensive.
We don't have to limit ourselves to natural terrains, either. Some of the bloodiest and
most devastating battles take place in urban environments. In cities and towns, tactics
change. Buildings create cover but also limit fields of view, again providing tactical advantages
to the defenders. Urban terrains are ideal for springing ambushes and setting traps,
which can become even easier to hide when areas of a settlement have been reduced to
rubble. Underground networks such as sewers and subways systems provide the means for
a whole new dimension of movement, right under the enemy's feet. Snipers have field days
in urban terrains. Another major factor to take into consideration is the presence of
civilians and non-military combatants. If the defending side cares at all about their
civilians, they can be a massive liability. The military might have to evacuate them from
the city (a mission in itself) or give far more consideration to the potential collateral
damage of every attack they make. Conversely, non-military combatants eager to defend their
home might actually work in the defending force's favour.
The urban warfare conducted in the Battle in Berlin, for instance, was particularly
brutal. Marking the end of the war in Europe, both the Germans and Soviets had had plenty
of urban warfare experience and adjusted their tactics to fit. Defending snipers and machine-gunners
fired from roofs and upper-storey floors that Soviet tanks couldn't reach. They also fired
panzerfausts from cellar windows. Tank-mounted Soviet troops combatted this by shredding
every window and door they passed with small-arms fire and hitting the city's rooftops with
AA guns. Rather than go down the middle of the street, the Soviets often fought house
to house, killing German soldiers and civilians alike. Flamethrowers were particularly effective.
German police, elderly militiamen, and even child soldiers of the Hitler Youth participated
in the battle, and all in all, as many 175,000 civilians wound up dead as a result of it,
as opposed to 100,000 German military deaths. The sheer brutality of urban warfare makes
this terrain among the worst to fight in, especially for the defenders — who must
watch their city burn and people perish. In the words of Berliner Dorothea von Schwanenflügel,
"The Soviets battled the German soldiers and drafted civilians street by street ... As
the noise got closer, we could even hear the horrible guttural screaming of the Soviet
soldiers ... Shots shattered our windows and shells exploded in our garden. [...] We watched
from behind the small cellar windows ... as the tanks and an endless convoy of troops
rolled by. It was a terrifying sight as they sat high upon their tanks with their rifles
cocked, aiming at houses as they passed."
It's important to remember that the horror of these terrains was, to a degree, a subjective
thing. Being on the offence in many of these terrains was, without a doubt, far worse than
being on the defence. Also, troops who had actually been trained and equipped to fight
in a given terrain probably wouldn't have hated it as much as troops who hadn't.
We're interested to hear what you think, though. Which of the terrains we've covered in this
video do you think would have been the absolute worst? Also, are you excited for our second
instalment on battlefield terrains, in which we'll cover an additional five terrains of
the Second World War? Please share your thoughts in the comments.