DISCUSSIONS
Looks like your data conflicts with mine.
The Soviet armed forces strength on 1 July 1941 was about 5.3 million men.
While prewar German estimated an opposing force of up to 300 enemy divisions, in fact, by December 1941 the Soviets had mobilized 600 divisions (!). They lost 100 divisions in the beginning of the invasion, but they still had an overwhelming (and always growing) force.
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
ian241289 said
I also finally found the book arguing Moscow could have been took
Reaching Moscow is not the same as encircling Moscow. Encircling Moscow is not the same as occupying Moscow (see Leningrad). Occupying Moscow is not the same as securing Moscow (see Stalingrad). And securing Moscow does not guarantee winning the war.
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
Odanan said
ian241289 said
I also finally found the book arguing Moscow could have been took
Reaching Moscow is not the same as encircling Moscow. Encircling Moscow is not the same as occupying Moscow (see Leningrad). Occupying Moscow is not the same as securing Moscow (see Stalingrad). And securing Moscow does not guarantee winning the war.
OK then I'll rephrase xD. The book argues the Moscow-Gorski area would have been secured and come under German control.
Taking Moscow would have certainly helped if Operation Blue was carried out as well the year after. The fact practically everything in the Soviet Union was centred in Moscow such as railroads, communications, government etc would also help a great deal to defeating the USSR. Also Leningrad would be able to receive no help whatsoever unlike what was happening so with Moscow falls Leningrad
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
True ian!
If Moscow had fallen (as Leningrad, whi Hitler by some strange reason didnt want to take but just starve and siege) the whole western Russia had collpased. But of course the USSR wouldnt have surrendered because of that. But without the important supplies from west, the industry in the Urals would have stopped.
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
Odanan said
Looks like your data conflicts with mine.
The Soviet armed forces strength on 1 July 1941 was about 5.3 million men.
While prewar German estimated an opposing force of up to 300 enemy divisions, in fact, by December 1941 the Soviets had mobilized 600 divisions (!). They lost 100 divisions in the beginning of the invasion, but they still had an overwhelming (and always growing) force.
55 Russian divisions were caught in one encirclement at Kiev with half of the Germans forces to be involved in Operation Typhoon. Russian divisions actually protecting Moscow were around 80-90. So the encirclement of Moscow was possible if you look at what happened to Kiev. 2/3rd's the amount of Russian troops defending Moscow defeated by 1/2 the German troops attacking Moscow shows it was possible and could have been if done earlier in the year.
For the first year of the invasion as well Axis and Russian forces were roughly on par in terms of manpower. The Axis total was 5.5 million men and in August the Russians got their total roughly on par with this number. After 1941 its a whole other ball game though with manpower numbers xD
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
True Ian ... and may I add that if Barbarossa had started earlier and Hitler provied winter clother: Well then they could very likely had won even if Hitler wanted to march on a wide front!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
ian241289 said
Odanan said
Looks like your data conflicts with mine.
The Soviet armed forces strength on 1 July 1941 was about 5.3 million men.
While prewar German estimated an opposing force of up to 300 enemy divisions, in fact, by December 1941 the Soviets had mobilized 600 divisions (!). They lost 100 divisions in the beginning of the invasion, but they still had an overwhelming (and always growing) force.
55 Russian divisions were caught in one encirclement at Kiev with half of the Germans forces to be involved in Operation Typhoon. Russian divisions actually protecting Moscow were around 80-90. So the encirclement of Moscow was possible if you look at what happened to Kiev. 2/3rd's the amount of Russian troops defending Moscow defeated by 1/2 the German troops attacking Moscow shows it was possible and could have been if done earlier in the year.
For the first year of the invasion as well Axis and Russian forces were roughly on par in terms of manpower. The Axis total was 5.5 million men and in August the Russians got their total roughly on par with this number. After 1941 its a whole other ball game though with manpower numbers xD
In books that I have read, German General Gurdian, I believe that's how it's spelled, was only 20 miles from Moscow. I have read in a number of books that Stalin didn't have a decent military unit between him and Moscow. But it was the weather that stopped him - rain and then a quick, deep freeze in which the Germans were unprepared for.
In the beginning months of the attack, the Germans literally 'ate up' much of the deployed Soviet forces: infantry, armor, and air craft. The German armor was so far ahead of it's own infantry that there are reports that they were at times 200 miles of separation.
I think that with all the complexity of WW2, there are many inter-related issues that causes Hitler to foul up the war for Germany-much of which I agree with written before. But remmeber that Hitler was fast becoming mad, and was taking sleeping pills just to get any kind of sleep. He was taking advice from astrologers to boot! It also seemed that he didn't trust his best generals. He could of decisively eliminated the USSR if he could of captured and controlled Moscow. In those days, if you lost your capitol, it was the equivalent of a major morale lost, or even the "unwritten rule" of surrendering-if you couldn't protect your own capitol, how could you do any thing else? It was also the gateway to the Urals... I also agree that Hitler had an golden opportunity to rally Soviet citizens to join his cause. That alone costed the Germans the destruction of countless supply trains (supplies and munition badly needed at the front) and truck convoys. Yes, Hitler should of conquered Britian first. Should of forced allied nations (like Hungary) to accept German training and equipment, and fall under direct German military command. Hilter should of never gone after British city targets, he was only a week away from destroying the British fighter force. He should of focused on one major target in Russia. I also agree that he should of never declared war against the US, but FDR would of sooner or later. And finally, Hitler should of never gone after the Jews and those death camps-too much resources devoted to murder. Thats my two cents, opps, I mean nickel... Joe7
- Joe7
- location: USA
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 27
Joe7 said
ian241289 said
Odanan said
Looks like your data conflicts with mine.
The Soviet armed forces strength on 1 July 1941 was about 5.3 million men.
While prewar German estimated an opposing force of up to 300 enemy divisions, in fact, by December 1941 the Soviets had mobilized 600 divisions (!). They lost 100 divisions in the beginning of the invasion, but they still had an overwhelming (and always growing) force.
55 Russian divisions were caught in one encirclement at Kiev with half of the Germans forces to be involved in Operation Typhoon. Russian divisions actually protecting Moscow were around 80-90. So the encirclement of Moscow was possible if you look at what happened to Kiev. 2/3rd's the amount of Russian troops defending Moscow defeated by 1/2 the German troops attacking Moscow shows it was possible and could have been if done earlier in the year.
For the first year of the invasion as well Axis and Russian forces were roughly on par in terms of manpower. The Axis total was 5.5 million men and in August the Russians got their total roughly on par with this number. After 1941 its a whole other ball game though with manpower numbers xD
In books that I have read, German General Gurdian, I believe that's how it's spelled, was only 20 miles from Moscow. I have read in a number of books that Stalin didn't have a decent military unit between him and Moscow. But it was the weather that stopped him - rain and then a quick, deep freeze in which the Germans were unprepared for.
In the beginning months of the attack, the Germans literally 'ate up' much of the deployed Soviet forces: infantry, armor, and air craft. The German armor was so far ahead of it's own infantry that there are reports that they were at times 200 miles of separation.
I think that with all the complexity of WW2, there are many inter-related issues that causes Hitler to foul up the war for Germany-much of which I agree with written before. But remmeber that Hitler was fast becoming mad, and was taking sleeping pills just to get any kind of sleep. He was taking advice from astrologers to boot! It also seemed that he didn't trust his best generals. He could of decisively eliminated the USSR if he could of captured and controlled Moscow. In those days, if you lost your capitol, it was the equivalent of a major morale lost, or even the "unwritten rule" of surrendering-if you couldn't protect your own capitol, how could you do any thing else? It was also the gateway to the Urals... I also agree that Hitler had an golden opportunity to rally Soviet citizens to join his cause. That alone costed the Germans the destruction of countless supply trains (supplies and munition badly needed at the front) and truck convoys. Yes, Hitler should of conquered Britian first. Should of forced allied nations (like Hungary) to accept German training and equipment, and fall under direct German military command. Hilter should of never gone after British city targets, he was only a week away from destroying the British fighter force. He should of focused on one major target in Russia. I also agree that he should of never declared war against the US, but FDR would of sooner or later. And finally, Hitler should of never gone after the Jews and those death camps-too much resources devoted to murder. Thats my two cents, opps, I mean nickel... Joe7
Wholeheartedly agree. With how bad Hitler started to become in the latter stages of the war it seems as if he was on the Allies side aha xD
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Haha yeah; and Churchill or some one of his politicians made a joke about Hitler millitary incompitence!
"If HItler dies ... then Germany might have an advantage, the might be able to make dangerous and smart tactic movements against us. So our goal sint to try to assassinate or kill Hitler cause he is one (BIG) reason why the Wehrmacht is incapable of winning. I gladly see him rule Germany until we reach Germany so that we can liberate them from this obvious mad man!"
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
So many true and sensible thoughts here, but non on the general abilities of any fascist or authoritarian regime.
For many years I had the opinion that on order to be militarily efficient and aggressive in an effective way, you had to have a Fascist or Authoritarian state. Democratic and Socialist states are not good when attacking aggressively, I thought, if they hadn't been attacked before.
The last ten years proved me wrong, I guess. The relative military build up of all western democracies in recent years, partly together with the direct will to attack other countries in all-out-war style is actually the most effective war machine you will ever get. Aggressive Democracies can also be the most powerful military regimes on earth, because they attempt to conquer their enemies militarily, socialy, economically AND culturally. And in fact, that has been the case since if you think about it WWII. There are only very few countries and nations on this planet whos internal and foreign policies are not directly related to the demands of western democracies. If you look at western democracies as parts or one big empire, you can't help but notice its total dominance in all the areas mentionend above, especially since 9/11.
Last time I noticed this was with the flood catastrophes of Pakistan. Mind you, Pakistans civil leaders are not in the least well respected in their own country. I daresay that for them, a military regime might indeed be the best and most effective form of goverment. Still, there is universal understanding even there of what should be the goal, and that is almost always a more liberal democracy, even if it is not sensible in their own situation. Add to that the undisputed existence of western cultural items like newspapers, TV, internet (twitter and Iran, anyone?).
Thats how it must have been with the total dominance of the Roman Empire, even over regions they didn't directly control (and still, more often than not, collected tributs from, even from the German tribes).
OK, great post mate. Very nice .... buut .... maybe a bit off topic, that wasnt so much about German failures during WWII.
But still ... very nice, I agree with ya! :)
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
I think the largest German failure during the war, was the Ardennes Offensive. It actually cost Germany a faster defeat. Launching the offensive at Christmas, was a bad idea, weather eventually opened up, and the USAF and RAF bombed the hell out of the Germans, costing them the very last strength that they could pull together.
However, if it had been successful, and Antwerp had been taken, the Germans very well could've kicked the allies back into France, substantially delaying their eventual downfall. But by that time, it was more about how long you could resist, then actually turning the war around, the Germans were doomed when they couldn't contain the allied armies in France, and when they wasted their tanks at Kursk.
I agree with ya .. but surely wasnt Ardenner Offensive the greatest failure ... or .... ;)!?
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
I believe the mistake of the Germans made is not finding a tank they could mass produce. The Russians kicked the hell out of the Reich due to the T-34. A tank with a decent gun, good mobility, and let's not forget sloped armor. Now the German inventory of tanks went into the toilet after the T-34 was introduced and thus the Panther came along. Now although the Germans were able to field a greater number of Panthers then there Tigers they were still doomed. I feel that the Germans simply lost due to the manufactoring troubles that the Tiger and King Tiger brought. And don't forget the second highest mass produced tank in WWII the M4 Sherman, the tank that helped us push the Germans out of North Africa and France.
Another thing that I may note is the engines that the Germans put in there tanks. The Maybach engine that powered the King Tiger, Tiger, and Jadgtiger was the same one in the Panther. The Panther had some mobility problems even without the heavy armor of the Tiger tanks. This cause the German tanks to be very underpowered. The power of the engine in a tank reduces more then just mobility however. With a smaller engine you can't add more armor, bigger guns, or larger chassis on your tanks. This severly limits what you can manufactor.
Africa is a shitstorm. Complete cluster fuck, rebellions everywhere. -SANAND
- Gmer_freak
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Jun 14, 2010
- posts: 921
thegeniusmartin said
I agree with ya .. but surely wasnt Ardenner Offensive the greatest failure ... or .... ;)!?
It was.
The Germans threw their last large portion of strength, that was capable of attacking, into the Ardennes offensive. Had that massive strength they had achieved, been used earlier on, I.E., in Operation Konrad, or a counter-offensive against the soviets, the war would've been substantially delayed. Allied forces weren't that strong, German troops were far more experienced, and had better gear, the main thing tipping the tide in the west, and in Italy, was the allied air force.
Had the siege of Budapest been lifted, the Soviets would've lost their momentum in the south, and their advance stopped. After that, the remaining Hungarian and Croatian defenders would've defended Budapest, while the German forces move north for a counter-attack across the Vistula, or Oder. Had such an offensive been successful, the war would've substantially been delayed, and Germany would've held out much after May 1945.
If the Ardennes offensive had been successfull, and Germany won in Belgium, and parhaps even retook France under German control... what next? Get bombed to smithereens until the Allies can muster up enough troops for a second invasion? Even if the war in the west had been a defeat for the allies, what would come of the east?
I beleive even Heinz Guderian suggested that Hitler use the massive strength that had been mustered up been used to support Operation Konrad, to help lift the Siege of Budapest.
IMO, that would've been a more logical choice.
Mistakes like small engines in large tanks such as the Tiger, KT, Jagd, etc. meant many break-downs which was the primary loss of German heavy tanks during the war. These tanks, when used effectively in battle were proficient tank killers that did their job better than any allied tank. Due to the constant issues, however, the destruction of most of these tanks came at the hands of the very tanks own crew. After the tank would break down due to mechanical issues, the crew would simply blow it up to prevent the allies from acquiring it.
As mentioned before, Hitler's set ideology of the perfect race brought him to under estimate many of his opposing forces, for example the Soviets. Although the Soviets were greatly out matched in every aspect of mechanics including equipment, armor, etc, they were able to win by mere numbers being thrown at the Wehrmacht. German forces were spread all over Europe and Africa which leads to another mistake by the Reich.
Africa was probably the second worse decision Hitler made during the war. Although some of his best strategist came into play during this time, like Rommel, it also meant that many resources and equipment had to be shipped over seas.
When they finally retreated from Africa it meant they also had to send all those resources back over seas creating a huge logistic problem for the German forces. Focusing on their ultimate goal in Europe would have created an initial "foothold on the world". Rebuilding forces, advancing equipment, mass production, and continued recruitment Hitler could have continued his mission into Asia/Russia as he wanted with the proper forces and focus to do so.
Preventing the Americans from entering Europe (Naval forces) would have been a huge advantage to the Germans and may have prevented a lot of the turn around in Europe/African fronts. The lack of focus on naval forces and submarines allowed the British and Americans to use their Navy's for attacks on the shores of German occupied territories. This is proven well just after D-Day when allied battleships could bombard cities/towns/key points without limits due to the coastal batteries being destroyed.
The Third Reich would have, or at least would have been far closer to success in Europe if they kept focus. However due to the many demands of Hitler, it crumbled the Nazi's from the ground up. Always demanding more and more, Hitler did not allow the production of any form of armor because bigger and better was always "needed". Although even the Panther was a far superior tank during the war, and with mass production would have been an extremely effective armored resource. The tiger tank could have also been a valued asset if the advancement of their tanks halted there until a level of production could have been finished. It would be interesting to see what the Third Reich could have done with a proper leader in power. How different the world would be.
Cameron - High Speed Enterprises Owner -- MSN: SourceUnknown187@hotmail.com
What you said abou Africa ... what if Hitler had given Rommel a more division and some more artillery and more planes? What if Rommel had won?
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
thegeniusmartin said
What you said abou Africa ... what if Hitler had given Rommel a more division and some more artillery and more planes? What if Rommel had won?
The Afrika Korps was not locally self-sufficient. That placed it at the end of a tenuous supply line. "Winning" for the AK would have been taking control of the Suez Canal. That would have constricted the Allied supply path, but not broken it. It just that the Allies would have been deprived of a shortcut, forcing UK-Australia traffic to go around Africa instead. An inconvenience, but not at all a "We're doomed!" situation.
AK securing all of North Africa just means that Allied resources would be allocated closer to their supply centers -- ironically requiring less travel times from supply center to allocation points. The net effect is that an AK "win" just makes the Axis more vulnerable and spread thinner over a MUCH larger area.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
TehBoss said
We should be praising Hitler for invading Poland in 1939, without that, Great Britain and France wouldn't have declared war on Germany, starting WW2.
i don't likes you anymoar you do realize that 240k soldiers died then there is the 2.4 million civilian deaths and the 3 million jews killed by the nazis which is 5.6 million deaths which is 16% of the polish population at the time....Poland suffered the 4th most deaths during the war after the USSR 1st China 2nd and Germany 3rd
Semper Necare
Semper Caede
Semper Mors
Semper Fidelis
Milite Semper
