| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Eastern front most decisive operation?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The Eastern front most decisive operation?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Poll Question: Which one really smashed the German war machine in the East?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
3 [23.08%]
9 [69.23%]
1 [7.69%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Eastern front most decisive operation?
    Posted: 24 May 2010 at 08:11
The question is, which of the three operations contributed the most to the Soviet victory over the German military from the second world war?


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2010 at 08:26
Definitely Stalingrad.
 
Moscow although important didn't affect the German army that much and in the end the Germans rallied, stabilised the front and even achieved some local gains in the Central sector causing some 1 million deaths among the Red army troops during that battle.
 
Stalingrad effectively wrote off a third of all German armies in the east in one gigantic blow. It wasn't just the German 6th army that was distroyed, four other field armies were effectively annihilated during this battle, the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies, the Hungarian and Italian armies as well were virtually distroyed. Other German field armies were savagely mauled like the 4th Panzer army. All the other advances either in the eastern front would not have been possible if not for this victory.
 
Kursk was the dead man's last kick, After the fall of NA and Sicily and the allied projected landing in Italy (sapping some 600k men half of whom should have been in the east) most German commanders knew that this was a Hail Mary and many opposed it. It simply helped set the pace of what was going to happen next on the east.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 01:45
Stalingrad (in terms of "definitely smashing").
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 04:04
Belorussia
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 04:19
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

Belorussia
 
The German army was already defeated well before Bagration (which came 3 weeks after the allies landed in Normandy and were about to land in Southern France), Bagration simply accelerated the defeat.
 
As Sarmat said, Stalingrad smashed the German army to pieces, it was a miracle that it wasn't routed then since two other armies, the German 1st and 4th panzer armies, were all but encircled by the Red army counter offensive. By March 1943, the Germans have lost some 1 million men a quarter of them dead while the Red army strength actually increased with the addition of at least 10 new field armies and the massive flow of arms and tanks from the factories that were now operating at full speed.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 26 May 2010 at 04:20
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 06:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

Belorussia
 
The German army was already defeated well before Bagration (which came 3 weeks after the allies landed in Normandy and were about to land in Southern France), Bagration simply accelerated the defeat.
 
While Germany had already lost the war in strategic sense after the Stalingrad, it's a gross overstatement to say that the German army was already defeated well before Bagration...
 
German Army, definitely, wasn't complitely defeated at that time.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 06:38
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

Belorussia
 
The German army was already defeated well before Bagration (which came 3 weeks after the allies landed in Normandy and were about to land in Southern France), Bagration simply accelerated the defeat.
 
While Germany had already lost the war in strategic sense after the Stalingrad, it's a gross overstatement to say that the German army was already defeated well before Bagration...
 
German Army, definitely, wasn't complitely defeated at that time.
 
The numbers tell a different story.
 
AGC facing the three fronts that conducted Bagration had about 400k troops and some 800 tanks which were battle ready on June 22nd. When the Germans rallied in August they barely managed to muster 800k men compared with the 2.1 million Red army men facing them and the Russians had over 5:1 advantage in tanks and airplanes as well keeping in mind that these were not the same tank crews who faced the Germans in 41. Even in Stalingrad such crushing Red army numbers were not available.
 
Al-Jassas  
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 06:59
So, what?
 
Numerical advantage didn't imply victory by default.  The war continued and was going for almost a year despite Bagration, Overlord, etc.
 
Germany was still strong enough to put up a serious resistance.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 11:03
I certainly do not think Operation Bagration would have been possible without the previous three already mentioned.

As for Kursk, i wonder curiously... what might have happened if the Soviets did not have prior knowledge, thanks to the Lucy Spy ring, of Germany's planned intentions?


Edited by Panther - 26 May 2010 at 11:03
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2010 at 12:32
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

So, what?
 
Numerical advantage didn't imply victory by default.  The war continued and was going for almost a year despite Bagration, Overlord, etc.
 
Germany was still strong enough to put up a serious resistance.
Agree with you on that if the situation in 44 was the same as 41, the fact of the matter it was the exact opposite. The Red army by then has reached its zenith of strength and organisation.
 
 
After Kursk the German army leadership (as well as many soldiers as their memoirs tell) all but surrendered to the fact that the war was lost, it was a matter of how, they were wishing for a reverse on "no conditional surrender". They lost over 1 million dead by then, the Red army strength was close to 6 million and the western allies were preparing to land 2 million in France and a million in Italy. There was no way that Germany could have won on these odds even if they had the 41 army that invaded Russia.
 
As for Kursk, it was inevitable with or without Lucy's info, that the Germans would attack there since the front stabilised there back in April of 43.
 
 The red army had a massive salient that threatened to cut German forces in half. The only thing they needed to know is when the attack will happen and they got exactly what they wanted, an attack in July just before the allies invade Italy which will give them time not just to prepare 8 solid lines of defense and saturate the salient with nearly 1 million men, but more importantly to prepare for the coup d'grace, the counter offensive which eventully liberated the entire right bank of the Dnieper by Jan 44.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 09 May 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 03:05
I would probably vote for either the defeat outside Moscow in 41 or the Battle of Kursk.  Personally I would say Moscow.  The German high command knew that it needed to take Russia out as quickly as possible.  Moscow was the last chance to avoid a long war, that Germany was not equipped for.  Once the Russian army held the Germans it became a matter of time before the Russians won through sheer numbers, both in men and in equipment.
 
Of course Kursk did start the final phase to an extent.  With the defeat of the German army there the iniative was fully handed over to the Russians.  Their counter attack after Kursk put the German's onto the defensive, and Germany was never to be able to regain the iniative again.  From then it was a series of defensive battles that led only one way, back into Germany and to defeat.
 
SO it could be said that either battle was critical, but I still vote for Moscow in 41.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 04:54
Hello warwolf
 
Taking Moscow by 41-42 was damn near impossible. Already by Dec. 41 1/3rd of all German troops were casualties with almost no replacements available. The tank groups supposed to encircle the city were depleted from tanks and any tanks left were not working either because supply trucks jammed because of the winter or the tanks themselves jammed. There were at least 2 million Soviet soldiers guarding the city or near by it being refitted for action facing about 600-800k cold, hungry and tired German troops. Even for argument's sake they encircled it taming it would be Stalingrad on steroids. Even if they succeeded in that they won't have enough troops to keep it and by then anyway the significance from such a conquest would be lost since the majority of factories (especially tank factories) were outside Moscow and the Soviet authorities have already set up HQ in at least two other cities just in case.
 
Now if Moscow was attacked in Sep. as it should have been then we could talk.
 
As for Kursk it was a dead man's last kick. The initiative was lost in Nov. 42 when the Stalingrad operation began. By the time Kursk began Germany lost in just 8 months on both fronts more than it lost since the war began in terms of troops, planes and tanks. The losses at Kursk were paltry compared to previous and subsequent campaigns and it was a done deal even before the operation began.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 914
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 07:20
Stalingrad is what broke the German invasion and power on the Eastern front. After that, the Germans would be on the defensive for the rest of the war.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 10:58
Originally posted by warwolf1969 warwolf1969 wrote:

I would probably vote for either the defeat outside Moscow in 41 or the Battle of Kursk.  Personally I would say Moscow.  The German high command knew that it needed to take Russia out as quickly as possible.  Moscow was the last chance to avoid a long war, that Germany was not equipped for.  Once the Russian army held the Germans it became a matter of time before the Russians won through sheer numbers, both in men and in equipment.
 
Russians won through improved military tactics and strategy. "Sheer numbers" wouldn't win that war no matter how large they were.


Edited by Sarmat - 02 Aug 2010 at 11:02
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 11:02
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello warwolf
 
Taking Moscow by 41-42 was damn near impossible. Already by Dec. 41 1/3rd of all German troops were casualties with almost no replacements available. The tank groups supposed to encircle the city were depleted from tanks and any tanks left were not working either because supply trucks jammed because of the winter or the tanks themselves jammed. There were at least 2 million Soviet soldiers guarding the city or near by it being refitted for action facing about 600-800k cold, hungry and tired German troops.
 
There never was such a large number of the Soviet troops at the battle; at the peak of the Russian superiority there was something like like 1,400.000 (when the bulk of the Russian reinforcements arrived) vs 600,000 Germans.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 16:38
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello warwolf
 
Taking Moscow by 41-42 was damn near impossible. Already by Dec. 41 1/3rd of all German troops were casualties with almost no replacements available. The tank groups supposed to encircle the city were depleted from tanks and any tanks left were not working either because supply trucks jammed because of the winter or the tanks themselves jammed. There were at least 2 million Soviet soldiers guarding the city or near by it being refitted for action facing about 600-800k cold, hungry and tired German troops.
 
There never was such a large number of the Soviet troops at the battle; at the peak of the Russian superiority there was something like like 1,400.000 (when the bulk of the Russian reinforcements arrived) vs 600,000 Germans.
 
I meant all troops facing AGC were about 2 million. AGC was responsible for taking Moscow thus all troops facing it should be part of the OoB.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2010 at 02:42

All the German troops gathered for the battle of Moscow also were around 2 million strong at start, so not a big difference in numbers here.

Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2010 at 03:28

According to Glantz (Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of Russia), AGC effective Strength on Dec. 5th was about 240k with 600 operational tanks

Red army Strength as of dec. 5 was 388k men with 550 tanks.
 
Unfortunately he doesn't mention the reserves both armies had but I will try and dig the numbers.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2010 at 03:31
That's the number of given on a particular date and it doesn't show any great disparity. The battle however, was going from October 1945, so, I thought you were listing the total numbers which were used through the course of the whole battle.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 09:15
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by warwolf1969 warwolf1969 wrote:

I would probably vote for either the defeat outside Moscow in 41 or the Battle of Kursk.  Personally I would say Moscow.  The German high command knew that it needed to take Russia out as quickly as possible.  Moscow was the last chance to avoid a long war, that Germany was not equipped for.  Once the Russian army held the Germans it became a matter of time before the Russians won through sheer numbers, both in men and in equipment.
 
Russians won through improved military tactics and strategy. "Sheer numbers" wouldn't win that war no matter how large they were.


At the beginning of the German invasion, sheer numbers was the only thing that slowed the Germans down. Statistics don't lie. Russia lost millions of soldiers in trying to stop the German invasion. Granted sheer numbers alone was not going to win the war for the Russians. But it did expose most of the Russian leaders to modern Western military tactics and strategy. Sure a few of them may have known and been exposed to all the pre-war theories, but there was very little practice at coordinating all the forces into an effective fighting force that came later. Especially after the purge of the military. Marshal Zhukov for all his faults prior to the invasion, being a prominent example of the officers to be reinstated after Stalin's purges.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 10:26
"Numbers have a quality of their own" or so they say. Numbers helped the allies in Normandy just as they helped the Soviets throughout most of the eastern front battles just as they helped the Germans against Norway or France and against the Red army during different stages of the war. Denying their effect is denying the obvious.
 
Equaliy mistaken saying that numbers are everything. Through most of operation Uranus (Stalingrad counteroffensive) the Red army did not have a crushing superiority over the Germans except in Tanks. The ratio of forces was quite close. Plus during the Moscow operation only in January did the Red army achieve a clear superiority in manpower but by then the battle was largely won.
 
A final note here, Zhukov was a star before WWII started (Khalkin Gol was a brilliant victory) but was only one amongst hundreds of generals who lead the Red army to victory.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 04 Aug 2010 at 10:28
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 10:40
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



At the beginning of the German invasion, sheer numbers was the only thing that slowed the Germans down. Statistics don't lie.
Hmm.. Perhaps, you didn't know that during the initial stage of the war i.e. operation Barbarossa, the Germans had superiority in sheer numbers and that's was on of the reasons of their success...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 10:53
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



At the beginning of the German invasion, sheer numbers was the only thing that slowed the Germans down. Statistics don't lie.
Hmm.. Perhaps, you didn't know that during the initial stage of the war i.e. operation Barbarossa, the Germans had superiority in sheer numbers and that's was on of the reasons of their success...
 
This was true until Sep. during the battles for Smolensk, after that until the end of the war the superiority was on the Red army's side.
 
Barbarossa failed for several reasons only one of them had something to do with numbers, the first and most important reason for failure was tough resistance, in the 8 days of combat in June they lost more men KIA than they did in 24 days of combat in June 40 which tells you alot.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 11:30
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



At the beginning of the German invasion, sheer numbers was the only thing that slowed the Germans down. Statistics don't lie.
Hmm.. Perhaps, you didn't know that during the initial stage of the war i.e. operation Barbarossa, the Germans had superiority in sheer numbers and that's was on of the reasons of their success...


Initially true. Something on the order of 1.3 : 1 in man power. Slightly in favor of the Germans. But not sustainable after a month or two of hard fighting considering Soviet manpower reserves were much greater than Germany's. Also adding to the initial successes was the lack of Soviet defensive preparations. 
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
King of Numenor

Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 15:22
The way the question is phrased I would have to say Stalingrad, though I find the battle of Moscow to have been more important.  Each of the three battles mentioned represent a different key to victory for the soviets:   (excluding other more complex factors, i.e. geopolitics etc.) Moscow was the first major reversal, it ended any chance the Germans had of taking Russia like France or Poland, it ended blitzkrieg.  Stalingrad put them on the defensive and kept at them, army group south and its affiliate groups were more or less continuously on the defensive or retreating right up to 45', really the only exception being the last throw of the dice, the third battle here mentioned... Kursk, which determined the initiative permanently in favor of the soviets.  

Edited by Justinian - 05 Aug 2010 at 15:22
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 04:43
After Moscow, despite Barbarossa being blunted, the Germans still held the initiative, hence army group south launching Operation Blau which eventually become entangled into the Stalingrad campaign. I would say that it was Stalingrad that knocked the wind out of the Wehrmacht's sails from which, despite von Mansteins brief spark of success at Kharkov and then the failure at Kursk, they would never recover.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 06:17
Moscow was not the first major reversal in the eastern front, it was the biggest one until Stalingrad.
 
The Wehrmacht was already planning to retreat (and in fact during the Moscow counteroffensive several German units were caught while they were retreating when it started on Dec. 5th). But even before that AGS was defeated in Rostov in mid Nov. and in the Leningrad front the attack at Volkhov failed and Tikhvin was liberated and the Germans pushed almost 100 Km west in late Oct. early Nov. Both of these were major defeats that saw big names like von Leeb and von Rundstedt fall from grace.
 
However Stalingrad marked a major turning point because by that time the reorganisation of the Red army was completed. The process of recruiting, training and deploying troops became organised (in contrast with 41, in Stalingrad the troops were much better trained and equipped and the officer Cadre had an entire year of brutal fighting to teach them how to become good officers). Soviet industry has already recovered and outpaced all but US war production and never again did the red army suffer major shortages in equipment. For the Germans everything was going exactly the opposite way. Troop training standards fell dramatically, problems with recruitment were so acute that the Germans turned to their allies which was to prove mortal. Drainage in officer and NCO ranks reached critical proportions (even before Stalingrad almost the entire 1st class of SS officer graduates has already perished and these were by then middle rank officers). And with the allies wrecking havoc in the west the Luftwaffe presence in the east became negligible especially during critical operations like Stalingrad. 
 
After Stalingrad the war in the east was practically over with a stalemate being the best option the Germans could hope for. Kursk and the landings in Italy made sure that even that was not going to happen.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 28 Jan 2011 at 06:19
Back to Top
jimmi View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 13 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jimmi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 19:47
If Germany had defeated or otherwise subdued Britain in 1940, Germany would have reaped these benefits: time to continue building their military machine before invading Russia; the ability to attack Russia without Britain as an enemy in the rear; loss to the Allies of Britain as a staging area for invasion of Europe/Africa, etc. It is not all that far-fetched, that the Germans could have won the Battle of Britain. Their strategic mistake was to shift the point of attack, from the RAF (attain air superiority), to wanton and pointless destruction of British cities. The Germans were actually winning the Battle, although both sides were suffering horrendous losses, when they switched to bombing cities, etc. Once the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over Britain, an invasion (by air or sea) becomes achievable.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 20:02
While there is some point in the Britain argument the delay caused by subduing Britain would have not been in Germany's interest. The invasion would have to have been postponed till 1942 which would leave enough time for the USSR to move its factories east (a move that began before the German invasion although not coordinated nor planned on the same scale that happened later), replace its obselete air force and tank force with the new T-34 tanks and modern monoplanes like Yaks and MiGs and Ils and of course most importantly, train enough crews to man those new weapons and enough soldiers officers on modern tactics.
 
Then the Germans would be in deep trouble.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 21:22
With regards to Unternehmen Sealowe (operation sea lion): the German plans to invade Britain, even with air superiority, the invasion by sea or air, would have been a major task, since  the Royal Navy would still have presented a major obstacle to any seaborne invasion, and the RAF had plans to withdraw its remaining assets to airbases in the north of England and Scotland as a contingency, if the Luftwaffe gained the upper hand in the air superiority stakes in the south.
 
Certainly the Luftwaffe could have 'won' the Battle of Britain but it was already suffering heavy losses prior to the decision to switch targets (which was indeed a mistake) .The Luftwaffe would have had to manage any anti-naval operations to interdict any move by the Royal Navy to intercept the German landing forces. So even with a successful landing the delay in subduing Britain could have presented a major setback to any plans to invade the Soviet Union.


Edited by Tashfin - 13 May 2011 at 21:24
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.