| 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
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Eastern front most decisive operation?
    Posted: 25 May 2017 at 05:37
A. Of course if the Germans had managed to take Moscow they would have won the war. And of course it was entirely possible to do so if they could have maintained unity of purpose in the campaign prior to the battle itself. For that matter if that buffoon Mussolini hadn't gotten them involved in Yugoslavia and Greece, Barbarosa would have kicked off a month earlier and allowed them 30 days of better weather to reach Moscow.

B. Of course avoiding the historical Stalingrad would have allowed the Germans to defeat the Russians. Anybody but vonPaulus could probably snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat. Any German military man worth a hill of beans could have told Hitler not to send his panzers into urban combat. Stalingrad should and could easily have been bypassed or enveloped and left to rot. And finally everybody seems to forget the fact that Stalingrad was only one part of a titanic counteroffensive that reached from Lenningrad to the Black Sea. Every where else except in the Stalingrad zone, the Russians suffered absolute failure.

C. My personal view is that Kursk was the turning point. Remember it was a German offensive. It was telegraphed by the Lucy spy ring. The Russian defenders were able to design their defenses around the specifics of the German attacks. Tacticaly, Hitler poisoned the well by ordering the panzers to abandon their standard policy of advancing only with infantry support, leaving them vulnerable to attack by Russian infantry with anti-tank weapons. And finally it was winnable. At the crucial moment when news of the Sicily landings reached Hitler he countermanded the deployment of Grosse Deutchland, Germany's largest, best trained and equipped combat division and sent it West to be used against the Brits and Americans. I believe that had they been committed at Kursk instead, they could have completed the envelopment of the Kursk salient, striking a critical blow to the Soviet Army.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2017 at 05:10
Originally posted by jimmi jimmi wrote:

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.
<div style="overflow: ; color: rgb0, 0, 0; : transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">

I have read that on the day of the last daylight bombing strike, that the Luftwaffe had essentially put the RAF out of commission. The British radar system was down AND the RAF fighter fields were non functional. Had they returned the following day, they would have met with little or no resistance. They would have been able to keep the RAF out of the battle and made their bombers 100% effective. Unfortunately for them they had no clue as to how effective they had been, and Hitler met with no opposition when he ordered the switch to night time bombing.

Go back before that. Had not Hitler and his top generals been frightened by the tiny British tank attack at Arras and issued the halt order there would have been no miracle at Dunkirk and Britain would have been knocked out of the war.


<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="154"><col width="154"><tr height="20">
<td ="xl24" style="height: 15pt; width: 116pt;" height="20" width="154">
</td></tr></table>

Wars and Battles Listed by Combatants

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 08:42
Thanks for all of the well learned responses!

Regards,
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 05:38
My vote is for Stalingrad. Had the Germans taken Moscow, the Soviets would have merely withdrawn further East. As long as Stalin and the Party were in control, the war was going to be fought. And had the Germans prevailed at Stalingrad, the destruction of Army Group Center in 1944 would have been a very different fight, likely waged a year or two later. Single battles can determine the turning point of a war, as I believe Stalingrad did, and they can end wars, but they cannot win them, except among miniscule armies and states. Wars are won or lost by the accrued victories and defeats in battles and campaigns.

As for statements that the "German Army was defeated when..., etc." The answer is simple: When the Soviets took Berlin, and not a moment earlier. "Losing" should never be confused for "lost" or you end up with surprises like the Bulge.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 05:29
Originally posted by jimmi jimmi wrote:

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.
There was no chance of Germany winning the Battle of Britain. Britain was too far away and the loss rario in pilots as a result was far worse for Germany than the loss ratio in aricraft. Moreover IIRC British aircraft production has already passed German in 1940, and the Germans had no sophisticated bombing arm.
For instance someone mentioned the 'dive bomber' JU88, but up until 43 or so the 88 could not be used in practice as a dive bomber because the airframe wasn't strong enough to pull out of the dive: later it was used as a 'shallow' dive bomber but not till the Battle of Britain was well lost. The 87 was of course a useless aircraft in the summer of 1940.
 
 
(Remembering that Britain could afford to buy aircraft from the US.)
 
Of course I suppose you can argue that if Germany had managed to double its aircraft production, and especially given up on useless dive bombers like the JU87, and produced some advanced bombing aircraft it might have won the Battle of Britain, but given the relative industrial strength and wealth of the two countries that's well into fantasy land. And it still had the Navy to contend with.

[QUOTE]
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 15 May 2011 at 05:23
Hello Ron
 
While you do have a point about the oil fields and that it was much wiser to go after them the reasons to go to Stalingrad were far more than just big egos. Stalingrad was the last major tank producing city outside of Moscow, although there were other tank factories moved to Kazan and inner cities their production wouldn't have exceeded battlefield losses until somewhere in the Spring of 43. Plus there Stalingrad was an important road and rail junction on the Volga and itself had oil production facilities (and still has). Not to mention that it made military sense too. The Caucasus is a wide steppe region in its northern section and going there without securing the Don bend and the Volga river at Stalingrad (which lies near the eastern edge of the Don bend) would expose those troops to massive Soviet counterattacks that might end (and it indeed did) in isolating large number of German troops east of the Don in the Caucasus.
 
Now for what the British and Americans have done, I don't think that letting the Russians fight their way through europe and then they come to take the trophies was on any of the Anglo-American planners minds. The situation in the eastern front was serious even after Stalingrad was won (mainly because no one had any idea how big the victory was and the German successes in other areas there). Plus the communist threat was still on their minds and no one wanted to the the national flags of western europe adorned by the Hammer and the sickle.
 
If the Anglo-American alliance could have landed in Normandy in 43 they would have done it in a heartbeat but the risks were simply too high. The near disasterous performance in Italy made them change alot of things and the battle for Normandy itself showed how even after planning for this operation for three years the allies still had a fairly good chance of losing there.
 
Now for Berlin, the Soviets had a chance to take the city in early March when they reached the Oder just 70 km from the city back in Feburary. While I still think that military reasons were the primary ones for postponing the operation until April political considerations also had to be taken into account. The Anglo-American alliance nearly broke on the issue with Churchill rightly telling the Americans about Soviet intentions and innocent FDR (who thought that Stalin would never lie to him because he used to be a priest) siding with Eisenhower who thought the prize should go the the Soivets on account of their sacrifices (and so that Montgomery who had the best chance to take the city didn't get it).
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 15 May 2011 at 09:02
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 04:47
For me, at least, the major folly of the Germans was to get themselves bogged down at Stalingrad, rather than take the Oil facilites near the
Black Sea, right away!

A major flaw that existed in that Super Ego of Hitler.

After that battle ended, most all hope for Hitler and his henchmen, ended. And, I also believe that the Western allies also dribbled and wasted time in their desire to really start a Western Front.

It actually made good sense to the Brits and Americans, to just let the Ruskies and the Nazis fight it out amongst one another, wasting away the power of both, just to save American, British and other Western armies lives.

But, of course Stalin also saw that he was being tricked, and forced the issue. And, except for a few exceptions, it seems the "best and the brightest" of the German armies were sent to the Eastern front, rather than to the Western. A lot of the British, French, and American divisions attacking from the West towards Berlin, faced German defenders, made up of Old Men and teen-agers, or less.

I still believe that Patton, given enough support, could have literally coasted its way to Berlin, without the heavy losses suffered due to the deal that let Stalin's forced get that trophy which caused hundreds of thousands of lives to be lost, and as well the literal division of Eastern Europe.
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 22:32
The other problem any invasion force would have faced is the ability of the Kriegsmarine to provide adequate protecton for the landing force, versus the numerical superiority of the Royal Navy's surface fleet. So this burden would have fallen on the Luftwaffe , which despite the presence of Ju-88 dive bombers, did not have effective torpedo bombing capabilities, and the U-boat flotillas.
 
Anyway, probably a discussion for another thread.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 22:11
I shudder to think what the world would look like today if the Nazis had gained a foothold and secure docks in Britain. Thankfully Hitler was an incompentent fool in military terms.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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 10:26
"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
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
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
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 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: 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: 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
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
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
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
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: 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
 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 0.142 seconds.