Re: Soviet mine-dogs

----- Original Message -----
From: <kaladorn@magma.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:27 AM
Subject: Soviet mine-dogs

> Mr. Paul, thanks for reviving my memory. :)
> I got the front right, but the order wrong (it was Soviet Dogs and
> German tanks they were trying to destroy).

Ne stoit blagodarnosti :-)

> You said:
> The mine-dogs were a Soviet idea- they were kept starving and fed,
SNIP
> 1) The RKKA used mine-dogs until 1943, when they were on the
> offensive and such an emergency defensive weapon was no longer
> useful. The Russians claimed that 16 dogs at Kursk killed 12 German
> tanks.
>
> [Tomb]: Is there credible independent verification of this? For the
> record, Russian docs claimed a lot of things that were
> unsubstantiated for that self same "good for the troops" reason you
> just mentioned. I'd be interested in any references you could
> provide. I'm aware of references on the German side that dispute the
> effectiveness of these dogs.
Nothing independent- I think it's a case of "the German's said it was
hopeless, the Russians said it was useful"- as you say, the truth will
be
somewhere between.

> 2) The Germans shot all dogs on sight in case they were mines
>
> [Tomb] Probably a good idea for any number of reasons. They also shot
> a fair number of Russians for similarly paranoid (and not necessarily
> unjustly) reasons. The Eastern Front was a truly unhappy place.

Very true- but I note the contrast between the German account ("Here's a
tragicomic example of Soviet stupidity and viciousness") with their
response
in the field ("Argh! Dogs! Shoot'em! Shoot'em!").

> 3) How would they know how the dogs were trained? If from POWs how
> could they trust such info?
> [Tomb] How do you trust any intelligence you gain?
I agree.

> 4) The RKKA had plenty of petrol driven AFVs
>
> [Tomb] My understanding was the problem was shape related moreso than
> the particulars of diesel/petrol related. Someone with more knowledge
> of canine visual perceptions than I could either confirm or debunk
> that. I've always found my dog good at shape recognition, but not
> terribly great at understanding a task that differs from one he was
> trained to.

Dogs are _very_ odour-oriented- and even humans have astonishing
difficulties distinguishing AFV types etc.  My ex-girlfriend once
excitedly
told me she'd seen a tank.  Exhaustive interrogation eventually proved
it
was a 1-tonne Land Rover towing a Light Gun. :)

> 5) The Russians had a lot of knowledge of dog training techniques
> (Pavlov!) and were subtle enough to "train" German explosives
> sniffers to ignore explosives SNIP
> [Tomb] This one I don't doubt. I'm just very skeptical of Russian
> claims of efficacy. Every side in the war inflated their scores
> against the enemy, but the Russians had as much reason as anyone
> (perhaps even more than most) to do some "creative accounting to
> boost morale". It could be that the Germans were downplaying the
> efficacy of this tactic. But it could also be that the Russians were
> jacking it up (an "Enemy at the Gates" type scenario comes to mind).
> OTOH, the truth probably lies somewhere between Russian and German
> claims. And no one will probably ever have more than an educated
> guess. Besides, its a pretty damn rotten thing to do to a dog.

Undoubtedly.
Rob Paul