Why so much speculations about Germany in WWII? [Archive]

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-04-2005, 10:40

Considering the amount of support that Russia got from the rest of the allies, that it was fighting only on one front since the Japanese were busy attacking the Americans and British in the Pacific.

Britain was fighting in South East Asia, North Africa and at home.

Nor was Russia that prepared before or during the war given the amount of purging going on.

Compare all of the main players with the USA and its production capacity, and despite being at War the USA's standard of living rose.

Economically the power house by volume was the USA.

Number of fronts fighting on was the British.

Russia tactics of meat grinder is not really the sign of great genius. More rifles, machine guns and training while maintaining a solid NCO core and keeping the more brilliant officers would have served Russia far better.

Hmm, OK Russia had only one front, but this was the main front of all war. Here was broken neck of Hitler`s army, not on secondary theatres as Africa etc.

Soviets also had better tanks than all other in war involved countries and their amount were larger than all countries had together. More or less same with all equipment starting from infantry weapons, ending with artilery etc. OK, Germany, USA or Britain had some specific units better than Soviets, but whole system was far superior.

Russian tactics? Hmm, it`s historical for them, especially in such type of country. One of Stalin`s aforisms says everything - "Death of one man - tragedy, death of hundreds - statistic".
Heavy casualties in the beginning of war were only because of Soviets plans to attack Germany first. Actually this was one of the main points that Germany wrote in in oficial declaration of war which was passed by Shulenburg to Molotov in Moscow.

The Electric Celt

07-04-2005, 10:50

I'm sure there will be more enlightened souls than I on this topic,however I'll chuck my tu'pence worth in.
The Germans pioneered the concept of mechanised Blitzkrieg and this did involve new and devastating tech. advances.The dive bombers that debuted in the 1935 Spanish civil war and various fast,light panzers that only later were superceded by the Tiger and super Tiger,these were one of the reich's mistakes on the Eastern front,Hitler opting for quality whilst the Soviets were able to churn out T 34's (Cheaper, inferior but in vast quantities).Russia only had numbers on it's side not tech.
Lest we forget superior German U boats,the V.1,V.2 and the German led developement of the A bomb.
I'll let someone more learned take over,but as an afterthought would be interested in why you feel the German army was not so advanced,
Cheers

edyzmedieval

07-04-2005, 11:16

Ahh.... One of my favourite topics...Germany in the WWII...

Germany was a powerhouse in the Second World War... It not only had brilliant commanders( see Edwin Rommel, Hermann Goering...) and numbers but it also had great technology and scientists.... Technology like King Tiger tanks, V1 and V2 missiles, heavy water( Telemark Research Base, Rjukan, Norway), great ships( Bismarck, Tirpitz) and last but not least, the Luftwaffe, helped them very much.... Too bad that they didn't have enough numbers of them at the end of the war....

And the medium level of technology was high also.... Look at the main battle tank, Panzer Kapmfwagen 4.... Very good medium tank, which was the equal of the Sherman....

If the USA hadn't come into the war, Germany easily could have become a superpower.... They helped the URSS which was responsible for destroying Hitler's army and country..... USA helped rebuild the Russian economy, which translated in thousands of T34 tanks..... USA also helped the British, who were nearly over in 1940 and 1941.......

The Electric Celt

07-04-2005, 11:30

I don't know how to quote a segment ,but Mr Edyzmedieval did I hear you correctly:

"Too bad they didn't have the numbers by the end of the war"

Too bad for whom ???!!!

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-04-2005, 11:48

Eddyz,

Goering - briliant commander in WWII?:)))))))) Yeah, realy great. Germans can say him thanks for Stalingrad catastrophe, for bad use of Luftwaffe field divisions, bombing German cities etc.

King Tiger tanks and V1, V2 had no large affect on war. Actually when this was developed war was ending and this armour has nothing together with german "blitzkrieg" strategy (actually this strategy borned in Lipezk maneuvres where Soviets allowed training of Germany officiers, equipment etc. which was forbidden by Versaile treaty).

For "blitzkrieg" in East Germany had only 4000 light tanks, including Chezh 38 against Soviets 14 000 including ~1000 T-34 (medium) and KV-1 (heavy). Same was with planes, guns, manpower etc.
Sherman tank:))) Was it really tank for normal battle? Small gun, high corpuss, low speed, bad armour protection etc.

Therefore I`m still asking why lots of people think that Germany was military Superpower?

cegorach

07-04-2005, 11:48

Sometimes I am really suprised how the German equipment is overrated.

It is usually forgotten that German planes, tanks, guns etc. were often outdated more than those of the USA, Britain or Russia or even some other countries ( France or Poland).
It is funny, but some units were using real junk... And just see how inferior equipment was used in 1941 in Russia.
Russian tanks or planes might be not the best in the world, but German were too - just see the number of PzII used during Barbarossa and compare them to Soviet BT or even T26. It is superior tactics, experience, commanders and luck ( suprise attack) which proved so important in the early part of the russian campaign.
It is often forgotten that if Germany had roughly 3500 tanks and 3500 planes the SU had 22 000 tanks and 19 000 planes of comparable quality or sometimes much more modern - the 1500 T34 and KV1 & 2 might be only a fraction of Soviet equipment, but it was almost 50 % of German numbers ~;)

Franconicus

07-04-2005, 11:49

Germany was a powerhouse in the Second World War... It not only had brilliant commanders( see Edwin Rommel, Hermann Goering...) ....... but it also had a lot of bad commanders (Paulus...). Hermann Goering was one of the bad ones. He did a good job builting up the Luftwaffe, but he lost Dunquerke and Stalingrad.

heavy water( Telemark Research Base, Rjukan, Norway), great ships( Bismarck, Tirpitz) and last but not least, the Luftwaffe, helped them very much.... Too bad that they didn't have enough numbers of them at the end of the war........... heavy water is totally overestimated.

edyzmedieval

07-04-2005, 12:01

I don't know how to quote a segment ,but Mr Edyzmedieval did I hear you correctly:

"Too bad they didn't have the numbers by the end of the war"

Too bad for whom ???!!!

For the Germans, for whom.....

If they had enough King Tiger Tanks and also V2 missiles, then I think the fate would have been different.... In my opinion, King Tiger was the best tank in the whole war.... (I'm reffering to its gun, armour.... it would have beaten the T34 easily)

CBR

07-04-2005, 12:06

The German army had some serious shortcomings in the material as they still used horses in their infantry divisions throughout the war. Their tanks were also very light in the beginning of the war.

But their blitzkrieg tactics and superior training made up for these shortcomings in the early years. The Soviet army ended up being a good army that nearly was of the same standards but of course with a much larger army compared to what the Germans ever had. Their attack in Manchuria in 1945 was very much a typical blitzkrieg attack.

CBR

edyzmedieval

07-04-2005, 12:17

Sorry guys.... I'm a bit dizzzy today....

Goering was indeed a bad commander.... Paulus had the complete responsibility for losing Stalingrad......
Brilliant commanders of the Third Reich: Heinz Guderian(not very famous, but he had invented the tank warfare in Germany), Albert Kesselring( which I admire) and Model(forgot his complete name).... Also, Gerd von Runstedt(not brilliant, but good)

At the end of the war, they really had some technology going, although they haven't had the resources and time to make them in large numbers...... The advantage of the Germans was clearly the Blitzkrieg.... Indeed, as you say, the had inferior technology when they attacked Poland and Russia( they had many Czech light tanks of inferior quality) but as the war progressed, they made many improvements to the army.... They made new tanks to equip the army, and they were good ( Panzer Kmpfw 4 and Panzer III and IV)but I think it was a bit too late... The Soviets got their T34 going.... It was the rescue of the Soviet Union....

CBR

07-04-2005, 12:17

King Tigers came way too late in the war to have made any difference. Tiger tanks were in general very expensive as they were very complicated to build. But the King Tiger was no doubt the most heavy of all tanks and its long 88 mm gun was deadly.

V2 missiles could only make attacks on large cities and the development of the industry to build them was very costly (they could have built around 10000 more fighters during 1944 instead, for the same resources used) and it was simply not worth the effort.

Germany had built up a good military industry before the war but amateur management of it cost them the war as it was only in 1943 they started to get it up and running and by then it was too late to catch up.

CBR

Franconicus

07-04-2005, 12:53

Ulrih,

do not know what exactly your questions is. Is it only about the power at the beginning or during the whole war?

In the beginning Germany was stronger than Poland, Denmark and Norway ... for sure. More difficult are France and GB.
German Luftwaffe had an excellent fighter. StuKa was o.k. too; rest was medium quality. There were no heavy bombers. France was a little bit weaker but not that big difference. GB had excellent fighters, too, and even heavy bombers. German pilots were more expierienced and better trained. The tactic of airbattles and airsupport was more advanced.
Germans Heer
Tanks were light and fast but bad armored and only with small tanks. But they had a superior tactic and were equipped with radio. France seems to be equal at tanks. They had more heavy ones but only two independant units. Rest was devided to the infantry units. British was much smaller and could not meet the Germans.
German Navy was much weaker that the French or the British one. Only their subs were better in quantity. However, they were still few and operating from Germany would not have been a big success. Only after having the french harbors they were dangerous. Brits unterestimated the subs because of their ASDIC. However, when the subs attacked on the surface it did not help.
Fundament:
German armies well built in a very short time. There was a lack of trained people and equipment. (during the battle of England GB produced more fighters and trained more pilots than Germany did). Germany production potential in 1940 was big but wasted. The industry did not work as effective as the US or Soviet.
Russia had a big army. A German study stated that the Russian tanks were not equal to Germans and that it would take years until they could launch a better tank. This was in 1941, when the first T34 was produced. Russia had much more planes. Even though most were old, they had some new disigns that were as good as the Germans.

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-04-2005, 13:31

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-04-2005, 13:33

" I want to know your opinion why there is such myth?"

With this I meant opinion of everybody that writes here:)))

Franconicus

07-04-2005, 13:58

Franconious,

In most history books there is said that Germany had great army, with newest equipment (better than had oponents) and that german oponents had no chances against Germany and only some luck (russian winter, late development of better equipment etc.) saved world. I want to know your opinion why there is such myth?
Germany was the strongest power in WW1. However, after the war it was so poor and his military was so restricted that no one really thought they could be a real threat to Europe. Furthermore most of the military thought that the time for offensive warfare is gone (-> France built that Maginot line)
Imagine the surprise. Germany won easily and after the France campaign Germay seemed to be unstoppable. Why? The explynation was not that the nations that had to surrender were bad equipped, had the wrong military doctrines and poor moral. The explanation was much simpler: Bad Germany had built up a huge war machinery. France and other nations were helpless victims of this machinery. Was kind of hysteria. I think even the US expected Germans or Japanese to land at their coasts. So the myth was born.

I really think that only ones that were ready for war were Soviets and actually it`s very big luck, that Germans striked first on Soviets, but not Soviets striked Germany. In this case Europe (and perhaps not Europe only)will know better Soviet crimes against humanity, but now Germans.SU was not prepared to enter the war in 1941. This is a lie the Nazis told to explain that this was a good war. And many of the veterans and Neonazis still repeat it. In fact it is not true. There is no doubt that Stalin tried to take advantage of the war. He wanted to get even more territories than Hitler had agreed before. He was in the position to wait an see what would be best for him. He was well aware that the SU was not ready for a war. His order to the troops told them to avoid anything that could provoke the Germans.

cegorach

07-04-2005, 14:10

English assassin

07-04-2005, 14:24

IMHO its because whilst its easy to get all excited whether a Tiger tank had thicker armour or a bigger gun than, say, the Sherman or the T34, its not easy to get excited about the fact that the Sherman and the T 34 were easier to maintain, operate, and actually get to a battlefield. Nor is it easy to get excited about production statistics, and the fact that whereas the total production of the Tiger was about 1400, more than 40,000 T 34's and Shermans were produced (ie over 80,000 in total).

I take the point you are making. The Battle of Britain is another such myth, with even the British thinking it was a stereotypical story of British improvisation, courage and sheer luck overcoming German efficiency. In fact the British air defence system was exactly worked out, in detail, years in advance, and it was the Germans who improvised and had a more "romantic" view of the air war. Likewise Britain was building Spitfires faster and more efficiently that the Germans were making Me 109's and so on. But of you ask the average man in the street he'd tell you it was all won by a few dozen public schoolboys in spitfires taking on hordes of highly trained but unimaginative Germans.

Franconicus

07-04-2005, 14:44

SU was not prepared to enter the war in 1941. This is a lie the Nazis told to explain that this was a good war. And many of the veterans and Neonazis still repeat it. In fact it is not true.

So I am a german veteran or neo-nazi, because I am sure the SU would attack - certainly before 1943, most likely in 1942, possibly in 1941.

There are very many facts to see the red tide coming e.g. the Soviets were trying to create Polish 'liberational' army in early 1941.

The 2nd WW was a clash between two mass murderers and two mad empires where the western allies had only a relatively small share of the entire fighting....
Common! I said the SU was not prepared in 1941. I did not say they would not have tried to enter the war later. I think Stalin was just watching and wondering when to enter the conflict. If the Germany would have been invating GB successfully maybe he would have attacked India. If GB would have been able to defend he might have chosen to attack Germany.

Franconicus

07-04-2005, 14:53

On e comment on this Tiger story - this seems to be a myth, too. Some books I read have hints that there must have been a strategic decition according to the tank production after the battle of Moscow. The German leaders realized then that they could never meet the production figures of the US and the USSR. So they installed a 5 : 1 program. This meant a German tank should be able to fight 5 tanks of America or Russia. So they developed the Tigers and Panthers.
Hitler believed until the very end that only a couple of German tanks could stop the invasion of houndreds of Russian or American tanks.
This program failed, because
- the US and the Russians built 10 times as many tanks with the same production capacity
- German tanks were too slow and needed too much fuel. They were unable to 'blitz' anymore.
- Due to the allied airpowr many German tanks never reached the front.

I am not sure if my conclusions are right. Maybe someone else has any information.

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-04-2005, 15:07

Franconicus,

There are lot of facts that show SU preparations for assault (concentration of Soviet forces on border, maps of Europe for Soviet oficiers, huge volume of supply materials on boarders etc.) and some historians speak even about data for attack (something like Soviet "Barbarossa") - 6th of July 1941. Soviets were waiting only for German invasion in Great Britain. In this case they could take over all Europe without any serious struggle, because main German forces would be involved in battle in UK.

Husar

07-04-2005, 17:40

If they were prepared, how could they be driven back to Moscow(almost)?
They even had to build new factories in Sibiria to be able to produce anything. Germany´s only chance to win anything was indeed the Blitzkrieg-strategy, because the german economy was not able to produce in such masses as Russia or the USA. If you want to know why, just compare some figures about landmass and number of people. German equipment was superior and they had plans/prototypes for even better stuff, they just didn´t have enough of it. Two nights ago I watched an old german movie(1954 IIRC) about Canaris, who was an older admiral in charge of the "Abwehr"(secret service) and gathered information for the army. He didn´t want the war and wanted Hitler to go, without bloodshed, but as some kind of patriot he still served and collected data. As the german invasion in Russia stopped due to the russian winter(yes, they weren´t prepared for that, although they knew about Napoleon´s fault, they thought they could do better just because they were Germans), the generals and Hitler just refused to listen to anything negative he found out, and in the end he was killed in a KZ because of his links to some traitors. Now as we all know, Hitler was crazy and so were many Nazis who were indoctrinated by him and his followers, they just didn´t mention or think of the possibility of a defeat and made a lot of errors due to that. How can you command your troops effectively if you don´t have any information about the enemy because that´s too negative for you to hear?
And don´t forget that Germany had the most fronts, they even needed troops to keep the opposition in conquered territories down.
And as was said here already, Russian equipment was NOT superior, I don´t know where you got that myth from? Why do you think was the MG42 used as an example for the american M60 and the german MG3 after the war? The Sturmgewehr 44 was also the first assault rifle produced.
German ships were also not bad, the Bismarck sunk the british Hood in less than 10mins and the british bombarded the unmaneuverable bismarck for 90 minutes with a whole fleet before the crew sunk the ship.(yes, I was laughing my ass off when I first heard that ~;) )
I know there´s a rumor of a german 4-engined bomber prototype that got unnoticed as close as 20km to New York.

I think it´s no wonder Germany lost the war, because it was fighting several superpowers at once who had a better economy over the long term, more territory and more men. But that doesn´t mean that all german equipment was inferior.

econ21

07-04-2005, 18:55

Ulrih, I don't understand your point. Given how the German army outperformed the Russian one in 1941 - IIRC it captured or killed more than half of it - isn't it obvious, even a truism, that it was superior? It's no myth or speculation - the German military in 1939-41 was proven to be vastly superior to the military of all other countries in the world.

Now if you are saying that Germany was not seen at the time as a military "superpower" in the way that the US now is, then you are right. The qualitative superiority of its army was not obvious at the time to the Allies, until it was (almost) too late. However, I am always impressed by the way Hitler and a few other German leaders do seem to have realised the strength of the hand they were holding. Hence their strikingly ambitious and successful warfighting plans. Maybe Hitler was just a gambler or had delusions of power, but some generals like Guderian and Manstein did have admirable insight into the effectivess of their military machine.

You seem to be talking about only hardware[1], as you acknowledge the German superiority of tactics and leadership. But the striking thing about the German early war successes is how far the "soft" factors like tactics and leadership could take it. I tend to agree with Electric Celt - Germany was the powerhouse in early WW2 because of its innovative way of fighting, centred around air superiority and the panzer division. When air superiority ended and the Allies learnt to cope with (and copy) the panzer division, then numbers and hardware told and the Germans were massively outgunned.

[1]Even in terms of the quality of hardware, the German army of 1939-41 was about the best equipped. One German infantry squad was probably worth about three Russian ones, thanks to their impressive LMGs (ok, I'm probably including soft factors here too). The Russian armour only started to clearly exceed the German armour when the T-34 came on stream - most of its stuff (eg the T-26) in 1939-41 was obsolete or clearly inferior to the German tanks. The PzIII and short barrelled PzIV were state of the art tanks for their time. The French had some heavy tanks that caused problems, but the British certainly struggled against them early on in the desert. The Messerchimdt109 was about as good as anything else flying in the same period (only the Spitfire matched it) and far better than most. The stuka was very good for the job it was asked to do. German artillery was up there with the best. Only at sea were the Germans clearly they were outclassed in hardware.

Grey_Fox

07-04-2005, 19:24

Why is Germany considered a superpower in WWII? Because it took half the world six years to beat it (even then most of the defeats were due to Hitler's meddling, if his generals had been left to their own devices, an allied victory would be far from certain).

Between 1939 and 1921, British and French tanks were actually superior to German tanks, it was just that the Germans had better tank doctrines than the Allies.

Going off-topic for a second, but I really think you guys are being too harsh on Paulus. He had a brilliant military career up to this point. He repeatedly requested permission to withdraw, and was always told that the Sixth Army would be relieved shortly. He told Hitler he could only hold out if he got 500 tons of supplies per day, and Goering told him that he would get them (in the event, the most that ever reached him was 50 tons per day). Manstein and Paulus had worked out plans for a breakout that had a good chance of success, but Hitler overruled them and ordered that the Sixth Army fight to the death.

I just do not think it is right to blame him of a catastrophe that his superiors created.

PanzerJaeger

07-05-2005, 01:46

Why there is so dominating thinking that Germany had superior military machine than other countries in WWII?

A lot has been said about equipment and blitzkrieg, but the simple fact is German soldiers were clearly superior to Russian soldiers.

Now in this day of political correctness, putting one group of people over another is a no-no, but its the truth.

Germans during ww2 were better trained, better motivated, braver, smarter, more capable, more organized, and more willing to fight hard. This was the case in both the officer corps and the ordinary infantry.

Tasks that Russian commanders wouldn't dream of giving an entire regiment were given to undersupplied, undermanned German units and accomplished.

Besides the utter brilliance of German commanders, who argued against Hitler on almost every decision he made including Stalingrad and Kursk, some of the missions completed in Russia were astounding. (See: Manstein's retaking of Kharkov)

The reason the history books, which you seem to be arguing about, talk about Germany's great army is because historians realize that with any sort of equality in numbers and supplies, the Germans would have easily defeated the USSR. And lets not forget about the West and the Mediterainian.

Sometimes Germany had the technical edge, sometimes Russia did - but German troop quality was generally always better than Russian... and thats no insult. There are many reasons for that.

Oh and your claim that Russia had better tanks is somewhat misguided. In actuality Russia had tank superiority for only a very short time between the introduction of the Pz.IV and the Pz.V. Before and after that German fielded much stronger tanks, and im not even mentioning Tiger units. ~;)

PanzerJaeger

07-05-2005, 01:48

Going off-topic for a second, but I really think you guys are being too harsh on Paulus. He had a brilliant military career up to this point. He repeatedly requested permission to withdraw, and was always told that the Sixth Army would be relieved shortly. He told Hitler he could only hold out if he got 500 tons of supplies per day, and Goering told him that he would get them (in the event, the most that ever reached him was 50 tons per day). Manstein and Paulus had worked out plans for a breakout that had a good chance of success, but Hitler overruled them and ordered that the Sixth Army fight to the death.

Great analysis. The mess at Stalingrad was Hitler's creation.

PittBull260

07-05-2005, 02:46

germany had the best trained soldiers, and very smart commanders

Papewaio

07-05-2005, 03:21

Hmm, OK Russia had only one front, but this was the main front of all war. Here was broken neck of Hitler`s army, not on secondary theatres as Africa etc.

Sorry this is one of my pet peeves and shows typical arrogant eurocentric thinking that the only place in the world is europe.

The British Empire at the time covered a 1/4 of the globe. Some of which was in East Asia and at war with Japan, a major power given what they where doing in China, Singapore and Hawaii. Japan was a very credible threat and was on the verge of taking over the whole of the Western Pacific.

If the Japanese had attacked the Russians instead of the Americans and British, Russia would have had its back against the wall. No American aid, and a two way front. Very hard to relocate factories to Siberia if it was flying the Japanese flag.

Germany was fighting a multi-front war, it was up against the British Empire and the USA eventually (minus that fighting Japan). That was not a good position to be in given the British Navy, Radar and the British 'lucky' ability to read the codes faster then the enemy commanders got them (first by mathematicians later by actually having the machine, some of the first computers).

Russia on the other hand was against one foe on one front, with the backup of two major players keeping the Japanese from them.

soda

07-05-2005, 05:22

A lot has been said about equipment and blitzkrieg, but the simple fact is German soldiers were clearly superior to Russian soldiers.

Now in this day of political correctness, putting one group of people over another is a no-no, but its the truth.

Germans during ww2 were better trained, better motivated, braver, smarter, more capable, more organized, and more willing to fight hard. This was the case in both the officer corps and the ordinary infantry.

German's greatest strenght lay with her (his :D) commanders. The infantry might have been better than the Russian one but they were not nearly as superior as you're making them out to be. The Germans developed superior tanks but late and not enough of them because they lost resources to build them. It wasn't the technology or the training as much as it was leadership. Rommel was outmanned and outgunned and he still managed to fight the Brits. His soldiers were tough but he was the main reason behind the German success in Africa.

Sorry this is one of my pet peeves and shows typical arrogant eurocentric thinking that the only place in the world is europe.

The British Empire at the time covered a 1/4 of the globe. Some of which was in East Asia and at war with Japan, a major power given what they where doing in China, Singapore and Hawaii. Japan was a very credible threat and was on the verge of taking over the whole of the Western Pacific.

If the Japanese had attacked the Russians instead of the Americans and British, Russia would have had its back against the wall. No American aid, and a two way front. Very hard to relocate factories to Siberia if it was flying the Japanese flag.

Germany was fighting a multi-front war, it was up against the British Empire and the USA eventually (minus that fighting Japan). That was not a good position to be in given the British Navy, Radar and the British 'lucky' ability to read the codes faster then the enemy commanders got them (first by mathematicians later by actually having the machine, some of the first computers).

Russia on the other hand was against one foe on one front, with the backup of two major players keeping the Japanese from them. You're talking about number of fronts, why not talk about number of men. Japan could have attacked Siberia but it didn't. When it comes to the war with Germany, the Soviet Union was key. The US provided an incredible amount of vehicles and weaponry to the Soviet Union. When the Allies invaded in 1944, there were about three times as many German troops in the east compared to the west. This is after whole German armies had been destroyed (Stalingrad etc.). With American industrial aid, the German threat was stopped and destroyed in Russia.

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-05-2005, 07:27

How typical for years and years of writing in history (especiall from Soviet historians) and german former generals:)))) Germany had superpower, better tanks, planes, guns etc. Russians were stupid etc:)))

You`re saying that russian great losses in early war were because of this German superiority? I will say "No". Great losses were because Russians were ready for strike too but not for defence. There are thousends of documents (films, photos etc.) where you can see hundreds of russian planes burning near the border. Why? Why russians bring 90% of all military aviation to borders just before German strike? And this question is even more interesting if you`re checking what germans did in the same time. The same:)

Same with tanks, supplies, infantry etc. Imagine what will happen in Russians will strike first? German planes would be destroyed, armies would be surrounded in Belostok etc. near the border (where they were concentrated), all supplies (that germans bring to border, closer to their forces for faster resupply) would be in russian hands etc. Just exactly same what`s happened to Soviet army in beginning of "Barbarossa".

All other countries main weapon for "Blizkrieg" - tanks used as support units for infantry. Except two countries - Germany and Soviets Union (Soviets had the same tank groupes as germans, just with little bit different structure). Main difference is that Soviets had heavy infantry supporting tanks (KV-1) for assaults on rugged defence lines (germans had no such tanks), medium tanks for surrounding, break outs etc. (T-34). Again germans had no such tanks. And thousand of light tanks for other tasks.
Same situation is with military planes which was another key to "Blitzkrieg".

You`re speaking about "Bismarck", but what this ship did for victory? It`s only one ship, whit this you can`t conquer the world. Ok, there where another "Tirpiz", but situation with this is even worth. It was sunk in the harbor.

Aaaa, yes, germans were not ready for Russian winter, but this is MAIN prove that they were not stupid, but only not READY for war. They had to strike, otherwise Soviet army will just run over germans forces near the border. And actually this is written in Hitler`s and Gebels`s diaries and the same was written in oficial declaration of war for Soviet Union.

Again I will repeat that there is thousands and thousands of facts that Soviets were preparing assault on germany and concentrating all military power near the border (same as germans did). It`s only luck for Western civilization that Hitler striked first, because he couldn`t conquer the world (at least by economical possibilities), Soviets could.

Papewaio

07-05-2005, 08:06

The way Russia used its soldiers during WWII and purged a lot of its officers before WWII sort of indicates a lack of long term planning on the behalf of the leader.

cegorach

07-05-2005, 10:15

AggonyDuck

07-05-2005, 15:58

Well the Soviets did know theoretically how to stop the Blitzkrieg strategy.
They knew they key was to stop the German armoured spearhead with their own armoured reserves. Of course to do this air superiority was also crucial.
But unluckily for the Soviet Union, the two main components in stopping the Germans were quite weak and mostly incapacitated during Operation Barbarossa.These two forces were the newly formed Mechanised Corps (31 of them) and the Soviet Airforce.

As we know the Soviet Airforce was totally mauled during the opening phase of the Operation Barbarossa at their airports which pretty much gave the Germans total air superiority.
When it comes to the Mechanised Corps the story is different, but still as ill-fated. I must admit that my knowledge of them is a bit lacking, so please correct me if you can. At June 1941 the Mechanised Corps were generally far away from their strength on paper. They're vehicles were outdated (except the KV-1's and T-34's) and their training was far from sufficient. You could call them pretty much a flop, but I haven't really found anything of how they were used during the Operation Barbarossa. From what I've read they were quite often ambushed by German Panzer divisions and the Luftwaffe was also did its share of destruction thanks to the lack of aircover. Also a lot of the T-34's suffered from breakdowns during the movement to the front at the summer of 1941 and thus never saw action.

Anyways the Russians were ill-prepared for a defense vs the Germans in June 1941(77 divisions were still on the way to the front during June 22nd 1941) and it shows in the German successes during the first months of fighting. The lack of preparation was mostly caused by the fact that the Russians believed that they would be the ones on the offensive and even if they were attacked they would be using a mobile defense to halt the enemy and then perform a counter-offensive. So when the Germans did attack in June 1941, the Russians were caught off-guard and the Soviet Airforce was destroyed and the Mechanised Corps who were meant to halt the offensive had a lot less effective power compared to their German counterparts. This pretty much meant that after the failure of the Mechanised Corps the Soviets lacked a proper method to stop the Blitzkrieg and the encirclement of the Soviet forces couldn't be hindered, which then caused the great losses to the Red Army.

Also I've read that the Russians were planning to attack the Germans the same summer, but somehow I can't see any reason why the Russians would do this, except if they severely overestimated their power (which is highly likely) and still they'd have almost no real chance to pull of a successful Blitzkrieg against the Germans during the summer 1941.

Anyways please do correct me, because especially my sources of the role played by the Mechanised Corps are quite scarce. :dizzy2:

IliaDN

07-05-2005, 16:07

Just one fact :
one of russians spies informed his goverment about german's plans , but gov. just ignored his message , so main russians forces were caugth unprepared and were destroyed in the first HOURS of war ...
Also USSR had lot's of troops on the border with nazi , so it is quite possible they were planning to attack germans ...

PanzerJaeger

07-05-2005, 20:01

You`re saying that russian great losses in early war were because of this German superiority? I will say "No". Great losses were because Russians were ready for strike too but not for defence. There are thousends of documents (films, photos etc.) where you can see hundreds of russian planes burning near the border. Why? Why russians bring 90% of all military aviation to borders just before German strike? And this question is even more interesting if you`re checking what germans did in the same time. The same:)

A skilled Russian military would have had plans for defence and been able to quickly turn the situation around. A decent Russian military would have been able to fix the situation before German troops got only a few miles from Moscow.

Your excuse doesnt hold up. Germany had defense plans that could have been implimented withen hours even against Poland. Strong armies do not take the time and lose the land and manpower the Russian military did to recover from an attack.

Papewaio

07-06-2005, 01:44

THe purges WERE to prepare the attack - Stalin needed loyal commanders and was sure he will able to train new generation of these - the purges were in 1937-38 - not later. :bow:
THe Russians do not care about losses - never did - so this is not important too. :book:

Yes Stalin needed loyal commanders. The Soviet Union needed great commanders.

Stalin choose his need above that of the Soviet Union.

That is not an act of brilliance it is an act of fear of what the great commanders could have done to his rule.

Not caring about losses is not an act of brilliance either. Wars are often won by who can outlast the other, squandering resources is not smart. As Paton said it is not the job of you to die for your country it is your job to make the other guy die for his country. Any commander who squanders his men for personal glory is a vain idiot.

One of my favourite generals, Sir John Monash stated:

The true role of infantry is not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

The Russia tactics if anything where the opposite of this.

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-06-2005, 09:04

2 1pain1Duck,

Exactly:) Why they need to prepare for stopping of Blitzkrieg if they were preparing for attack and even Hitler knowed that he can`t beat Soviets if they have another front against UK. He said that couple times and this was just the same as was told by Bismarck.
And WWII showed that Germany was not ready for war against Soviets, even in such situation when Soviets had best forces near the border where they were smashed in the early period of war.
Nothing would stop Soviets if they had attack before germans. German Luftwaffe would be burned near the border just like Soviets and all army groups would be surronded just like Soveit groups in the early days. And one more thing, Soviets main strike was planed for Rumanian oil fields, and this means, that Germany would lose all oil supply in the beginnign of war. I think there is nothing to explain what will happen then with mechanic units. This would mean that there is no serious force against Soviets till the British channel.

2 IliaDN,

IliaDn this spy (Rihard Zorge) had a failure before, therefore Moscow ordered him to return already year before. He knew exactly what this means in such country as Soviet Union and refused to come back. Would you believe such spy`s info? Especially when he says that Hitler will done most stupid thing in the world - attack Russia whith his light tanks, no tactical bombers, shortages of oil, no weapons, armor, dresses for Russian winter etc.

2 PanzerJager,

Does Germany had defence plans against Soviets when they started Barbarossa? And how these plans (if they had) would work when all forces are on the border, with supply, planes etc, right after their backs?

2 Papewaio,

Stalin acts was against old generals and oficiers that were from Civil war and thinked like that - massive cavalary against peasents etc. They know nothing about modern warfare and actually most of them received promotions during assasin actions in Civil war. These comanders thinking was the same as French old comanders etc. Instead of these comanders (Uborevich, Blicher, Jakir etc.) raised new ones - ZHukov, Shaposhikov, Timoshenko, Konev etc. So he did everything correctly, because he was preparing for modern warfare.

AggonyDuck

07-06-2005, 12:28

I disagree with your view of the Soviets being unstoppable if they were the ones to attack first. Firstly the level of tactical surprise would be a lot lower, because infact the Germans were expecting to me attacked. Also if the Soviets had attacked in late summer 1941, then I'd be surprised if they had pulled off a successful blitzkrieg. Firstly the quality of the training that the Soviet Airforce had was quite crap and their planes were mostly crap too. (just look at the successes of the Finnish Airforce in the Winter War and early continuation war vs a numerically larger force)
Also I'm highly sceptic about the quality of the Soviet Mechanised Corps.
They failed in Operation Barbarossa vs a lot smaller foe and somehow I can't see them beating the German Panzer Divisions in 1941. ~;)
With the failure of these two parts, I can't see a reason why the Soviet Offensive would work properly. If the Soviets had 50% of their armoured forces as T-34's, then they prolly would be able to pull it off. But in 1941 about 10% were these and the rest were outdated light tanks like the BT-7's and so on.

Ulrih fon Jungingen

07-06-2005, 14:31

PanzerJaeger

07-06-2005, 14:59

Does Germany had defence plans against Soviets when they started Barbarossa? And how these plans (if they had) would work when all forces are on the border, with supply, planes etc, right after their backs?

The Germans did have plans for a soviet attack and would have been able to halt such an event long before it reached Berlin.

Just some more facts:

1. Soviets had better tanks than German`s, and also outnumbered them

Tanks? The soviets had a better tank for a short time, the t-34, which still didnt prevent them from being mauled by Pz.IVs because of the better training the Germans had. If the soviets had such a great military, why couldnt they train their tankers to even come close to the skill of German ones? The Pzs. V, VI, and VII clearly outclassed anything the soviets had including the IS-2.

2. Soviets had better tactical bobmer (Il-2) than German "Stuka" and also lots of other planes. Here is too quantity on side of Soviets.

Why were to top aces of the entire war German? Do you again blaim this all on the surprise attack? Stuka pilots far outscored Il-2 pilots.

3. Soviets had 3 eshelons of ready for strike army on border, Germans only 1.

That still didnt stop them from being decimated.

4. Soviets had more than 300 000 paratroopers (which is only attacking force), Germans 4000.

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

You completely ignore the war in two other theaters Germany was having to fight. Kursk - if you remember - had to be called off because of the Italian invasions. Dont forget how badly Stalin wanted a second front, even in 1944.

The truth is that the Soviet army had every advantage in the book and yet only barely managed a victory with a huge amount of help from the other allies.

As I said before, the technical edge swung back and forth, but German soldier quality was always better than that of their soviet counterparts - officers to line infantry.

Husar

07-06-2005, 16:33

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

You see that as a good point? If winning a war with high casualty rates is a good thing in your opinion, maybe you should ask Pyrrhus or the families of the dead soldiers.(yes,the first may be difficult to do ~;) ) You cannot say a nation is more glorious or better than another just because it has 20times as many people and can simply overrun the smaller nation. It´s like talking about a glorious german victory in the Netherlands, who didn´t even have tanks(well, you may count bicycles as motorized divisions, but..... ~D ).

cegorach

07-06-2005, 16:39

The Germans did have plans for a soviet attack and would have been able to halt such an event long before it reached Berlin.

>>>>>>>>> I thinks so, but the Soviets NEVER HAD ( before) which is their problem.

Tanks? The soviets had a better tank for a short time, the t-34, which still didnt prevent them from being mauled by Pz.IVs because of the better training the Germans had. If the soviets had such a great military, why couldnt they train their tankers to even come close to the skill of German ones? The Pzs. V, VI, and VII clearly outclassed anything the soviets had including the IS-2.

>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but noone should tell that German tanks were all superior - especially in 1941.

Why were to top aces of the entire war German? Do you again blaim this all on the surprise attack? Stuka pilots far outscored Il-2 pilots.

>>>>>>>>>> And why were the top ALLIED aces Soviet - not British, Polish or American ?
The Germans were fighting ALL THE time and even beeing shot down didn't mean you could have some time free. ~:)

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the Soviets were superior, but German army wasn't the perfect warmachine it is often believed to be. :book:

The truth is that the Soviet army had every advantage in the book and yet only barely managed a victory with a huge amount of help from the other allies.

>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly thanks to the German blunders e.g. Kursk.

As I said before, the technical edge swung back and forth, but German soldier quality was always better than that of their soviet counterparts - officers to line infantry.

>>>>>>>>> Who cares and who cared in the SU - Russia never had army of superior quality. ~:cheers:

Franconicus

07-06-2005, 16:46

Excellent analysis, Panzer!
Just some comments:

Tanks? The soviets had a better tank for a short time, the t-34, which still didnt prevent them from being mauled by Pz.IVs because of the better training the Germans had. If the soviets had such a great military, why couldnt they train their tankers to even come close to the skill of German ones? The Pzs. V, VI, and VII clearly outclassed anything the soviets had including the IS-2.
T34 was a good tank. He was fast and very good on bad ground. And he was much cheaper than the German tanks. He was not made to fight German tanks, but he was excellent to blitz.

Why were to top aces of the entire war German? Do you again blaim this all on the surprise attack? Stuka pilots far outscored Il-2 pilots.
Soviet soldiers were supposed to die after a few fights. Il2 killed a lot of German tanks but they had increadible losses. But the Russians could afford. Il2 had better weapons and better armor than the Stuka.

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.
There were no big airborne operation at this front. So paratroops are not the key to judge the military potential.

As I said before, the technical edge swung back and forth, but German soldier quality was always better than that of their soviet counterparts - officers to line infantry. Soviet soldiers had some advantages however. There equipment was more primitive - and more reliable in the wilderness and cold. They managed to take their planes off when the German planes were frozen. They could suffer. They had a brilliant moral, fighting after all those desastrous battles at the beginning. They adopted a lot of German tactics.
Do you know these pages :book: :
http://www.iremember.ru/index_e.htm
http://luthier.stormloader.com/home.html

I think you will like them!

AggonyDuck

07-06-2005, 18:03

2 1pain1Duck,

:))))))))))))))
Please compare BT7 etc. with German tanks on 1941. Or other outdated tanks:)) Germans had nothing like these, more than half of 3500 German tanks were T-I, T-II and (t)38. And then look at the number of Soviet tanks 14 000 against 3500 German, including 1000 of T-34 and KV-1. Such tanks had no country for that time in the world. Lucky for Hitler he stiked first and this ment that airforces were destroyed, which means that Soviet tanks had no airsupport and no info where to move, strike etc. (airforces in "Blitzkrieg" as you know are "eyes" of mobile corps), this meant that they become easy target for German planes, just like German tanks were for Allies after D-day. Especially if lot of them were also on trains, moving to border in that time.

Airforces were week, of course, but look at the number. Imagine Soviet strike on German airfields in June 21th! All planes would be destroyed, and this means that Soviets would fight again some remains of Luftwaffe and if there is 10 planes against 1, then they don`t need good pilots, because 10 against 1 is 10 against 1.

Just some more facts:

1. Soviets had better tanks than German`s, and also outnumbered them
2. Soviets had better tactical bobmer (Il-2) than German "Stuka" and also lots of other planes. Here is too quantity on side of Soviets.
3. Soviets had 3 eshelons of ready for strike army on border, Germans only 1.
4. Soviets had more than 300 000 paratroopers (which is only attacking force), Germans 4000.

And so on.

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

The BT's were at best on the same level with Pz.II, but when it came to the training of the crews the difference was huge. This generally meant that the advantage on the German Panzer divisions was a lot bigger. Also the other main stay tanks were pretty much on the same level as the Germans, not superior. The only tanks that were superior to the German ones were the KV-1's and T-34's. But the training that the T-34 crews received wasn't satisfactory and T-34's suffered from severe reliability issues in 1940-41.

Also now lets play answer some more of your facts.

1. Nope. Only the T-34's and KV-1's were superior and this superiority was offset by the capability of the German Panzer crews. Also as mentioned the T-34's still had issues in early 1941.

2. At the summer of 1941 the Russians had about 300 Il-2's, so I can't see them being that much of a threat at that time.. ~;)
Also none of the Russian fighters were anywhere close to the efficiency of Bf109's and the training of the pilots was again nowhere near the training of the German pilots. So in a situation where poorly trained Russian pilots in their somewhat weaker fighters were supposed to beat the experienced German pilots flying in their Bf109's, then I can't really see the Russians beating Germans. Even if they would had a big quantitative advantage. ~;)
This changed of course later in the war with the advent of better Soviet airplanes.

3. Actually from what I've read those echelons were meant to halt the German advance in the case of an unlikely invasion. Also I can't really see the usefulness of deploying your invading force in three echelons. ~;)
Even then the number of echelons is certainly not a good way of comparing the forces arrayed on either side. ~;)

4. Firstly even if Soviets had 300 000 paratroopers, I doubt they would own the needed planes to transport these men. The Soviets would have to possess atleast 5000 transport planes to get all of them to the front and even then airborne operations on that scale without air superiority is total madness. (and a convenient slaughter for the Germans)

You should also note that my argument is that in the year 1941 a Soviet invasion would be doomed to fail, not that a Soviet invasion later on would be. In 1942-43 an Soviet invasion would have a lot better chances of success, due to the fact that the Red Army was still in the process of reforming itself in 1941. ~:)

Brenus

07-06-2005, 20:53

And here again… The fact that the German are considered as THE superior war machine is based on two facts: First because they were the better trained and better motivated troops during the 1st phase of the war, two because the post war (cold war) western historians denied to the Russian (USSR) military skills and underestimated their material.
The Germans were prepared for one kind of war, the Blitzkrieg, and all their weapons were designed of this goal. But, by the same token, these weapons became their weakness. A Stuka is good for his use, when the sky is clear, but too slow when the enemies have fighters. Heinkel 111, Ju 88, Dornier 17 were good for their purpose, but the lack of long range heavy bombers able to destroy the factories far behind the lines will doom their attack on Russia. The Me109, or 110, and even FW190 hadn’t enough petrol to be engage on a dogfight and during the battle of England, some pilot finish in the Channel just because they didn’t take care about their fuel level…

According to von Rundstedt, who had fought in Russia during the WW1, the Blitzkrieg couldn’t work in Russia due to the immense landscape and the huge amount of men and material needed. He was proved right…
Ulhrih fon Jugingen, where did you read that the Russian were ready to attack Germany?
August von Kageneck, German historian and, if you believed what he wrote and said several times, was one of the fist to enter in USSR, being in the recon of the 9th Panzer, stated than the Russians were absolutely not prepared for what happened…
This story of German pre-emptive strike is just a lie...
The Russian tactic during the first months of the war was to counter offensive, what ever the cost. But, because the German ability and skills, they weren’t able to match. They had first to learn to defend, to put a halt to the German speed, which they did.
At the end of the day, all the skills of the German officers can’t hide one thing: Barbarossa was a failure. It was indeed a catastrophe for the Russians, but even with all the tactical success, the tactical goals weren’t achieved… Between Barbarossa na Operation Typhoon (attack on Moscow) the Germans lost 830 903 casualties. They will never recover.
Then the Russians (Rokosovsky,) developed the concept of the mechanised war, infantry and tanks working together (Moscow) and the Shield and the Sword (Koniev in Kursk).
The T34 was not in use during Barbarosa, only in small number with ill trained crews (+ no radio, no proper command, no co-ordination).
I think you mix-up the KV1 wit KV 85. The KV1 was a disaster.

Cegoarchi1, the BT and T26 were light tank, equivalent to the Panzer I and II. The Germans deployed 3439 Panzers, you are right. However, on this amount 965 were Pz III, 439 PzI V (106 Pz 35(t), 181 Pz I (mainly in the Engineers), 476 Pz II, and 230 Pz III Befelswagen), plus all the autonomous units (panzerjager, Sturmgeschutz), Some French Somua S35 will be used in the occupied rear zones.
The Russians had between 20 000 - 21 000 tanks. However, recent studies show that 29% of the old tanks needed heavy reparations and 44% light reparations. In fact, the Germans will have to face 15 000 tanks (967 T-34, 508 KV-1 & 2). On 13 500 tanks on the Western Front (for the Russians) only 5000 were really ready to fight. Which is still more than the Germans, but they were not ready…
Be careful of figures, they don’t tell all the truth and reality…

And the Germans planes in 1939 were better than most of their counterparts: Spifires, Breguet 693, Dewoitine d520 or other planes able to match with the Me109 were too few and too late…
The Soviet planes during Barbarossa were mainly Polikarpov I16, and other biplanes or plane built in wood…

Electric Celt, the German never develop the A bomb. They choose the wrong path. For what I read, they still needed long year of studies before to succeed something on this path. No country produced A bomb wit Heavy Water…

Edyzmedieval, the support for the allies was a great support for the Russians in term of trains, lorries, jeeps and other logistic. The Russians weren’t so happy with the Grant, Matilda, Hurricane or Kitty-hawk they received which were inferior from their own Yack, Lavochkine, Mig, T34, KV85, JSU and other Joseph Stalin… When the US entered in the war, the Soviets had yet stopped the German and inflicted several blows to the Wehrmacht…
The Koening Tiger was too heavy, too slow and too big, so to vulnerable to air strike, as it was proved during the Battle of the Bugles… If the Germans Tanks were so good, why they were not produced after the WW2?
Of course it would have beaten the T-34 just because the T-34 conception was in 1935.
The V2 was only useful against town, at cost a lot. One of the most Unecessary and expensive weapons never made…

PzJg, we had this debate before. I didn’t convince you, you didn’t convince me. The German soldier was better, but the Russians were stronger more resilient. Never the Germans endured the lost of the Red Army and kept fighting… And Paulus wasn’t a good general. All his career was in the administration… No blame, but he was no match against Zukov, Vatoutine Vassilevsky or Rokossovsky.

Papewaio an Soda, if Russia had only one front (but quiet a huge one) it is also because Zukov defeated the Japanese in Galing Gol…

Watchman

07-06-2005, 22:56

Eh, there's a simple enough reason to assume the German military machine (which includes stuff like leadership, organisation, etc. besides the actual troops and equipement in the field) - until about -42 or so they kicked the rear end of anyone they could actually get their hands on. The Brits they couldn't, as the Channel and British air and naval superiority made any edge in terms of land army irrelevant; the Soviets they tried very hard to, but the buggers turned out to have just plain too much material they could afford to lose and territory they could afford to give up (I understand military jargon knows this as "strategic depth") to obligingly drop before the Germans exhausted themselves.

That aside, early in the war the Red Army was something so pitifully undequalified for any real military application it's just plain tragic. Stalin's political fickles and mass purgings had pretty much crippled it, most of its equipement was crap, and the troops supposed to use them had only a very vague idea of how. What quality remained in the officer corps was pretty effectively throttled by direct political control over their operations in the form of the infamous Comissars and other political officers directly supervising everything.

There's a telling anecdote about some low-ranking courier or somesuch who was told to take a message to some officer in his HQ, and given a pair of NKVD soldiers as escorts since others weren't available. (For the record the NKVD were political troops under Party control, and usually the ones who got to act as "plug units" to keep line troops from fleeing; the Germans found them fanatically stubborn adversaries.) When he entered the hapless officer thought he was a political officer come to execute him for failure, and pretty much pleaded in tears that he hadn't done anything, had only followed orders, all the mistakes had been made by someone else, etc.

Ought to tell something about how well the command structure worked at the time. Stalin gave the military a looser rein as a sort of reward once the front began to stabilize, which proved to be a generally good move.

Compared to *that* the German equivalent was a smooth-running Swiss clockwork crafted by a master of the art, even when Hitler was telling his hapless commanders to do stupid things.

The Soviets were actually pretty familiar with the Blitzkrieg idea - they pretty much invented it around the time they were secretly doing joint military research with Die Reich. However, Stalin's little political maneuvers put the pioneers of the idea into the camps and restored the organization of Red Army assets to the same, obsolete standards as about everyone except the Germans used at the early parts of the war. Once the Blitzkrieg idea (the Soviets called their version the "deep combat doctrine", apparently) got proven to be workable in Poland and France Stalin hastily ordered its adoptation in the Red Army too - and when Barbarossa struck the hapless army was in the middle of reorganisation, and to boot one carried out with the usual Stalinist adminstrative competency... :dizzy2:

No wonder the poor bastards didn't do all that well.

As a side note, the T-34 was a bit of a miracle piece of engineering. Not by any particular sophistication by any means past the sloped armour; German tanks for example had by far superior gunsights (although it didn't hurt that their crews were actually *trained* before being sent to the battle either...), and the Soviets never had anything akin to those prototype elevation gyrostabilizers the Americans built into some tanks. But it was fast, sturdy, reliable, had decent enough firepower, and was easy to produce in bulk. The /85 upgrade, although it apparently reduced speed and operational range a bit, provided the sound basic design with sufficient firepower increase and some other fixes (like having a three-man turrent instead of two, leaving the tank commander free to concentrate on his main job) to keep it perfectly battleworthy until the end of the war.

The only serious competitor in the same wight class, the PzKpfW V Panther, was overall better, but had an in the context crippling flaw - it had about as three or four time as many parts... And we all know how good straits the German war industry was generally in to begin with. In general they seem to have had a bit skewed, over-engineered approach to hardware developement their factories couldn't quite cope with.

Papewaio

07-08-2005, 00:32

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

There were no big airborne operation at this front. So paratroops are not the key to judge the military potential.

Not sure if you are referring to Crete or Russia... for Crete:

The battle of Crete was the largest German airborne operation.

On April 25, Adolf Hitler signed Directive Number 28, ordering the invasion of Crete. The Royal Navy's forces from Alexandria retained control of the waters around Crete, so any amphibious assault would be quickly decided by the nature of an air-versus-ship battle, making it a risky proposition at best. With German air superiority a given, an airborne invasion was decided on.

This was to be the first truly large-scale airborne invasion, although the Germans had used parachute and glider-borne assaults on a much smaller scale in the invasion of France and the Low Countries, and Norway. The intention was to use Fallschirmjäger (Luftwaffe paratroopers) to capture key points of the island, including airfields that could then be used to fly in supplies and reinforcements in the usual way. The XI Fliegerkorps was to coordinate an attack by the 7th Air Division, which would insert its paratroopers by parachute and glider, followed by the 22nd Air Landing Division once the airfields were secure. The assault was initially scheduled for 16 May; it was postponed to 20 May and the 5th Mountain Division replaced the 22nd Division.

It was also the last due to the amount of casualties sustained. It could have been worse if Freyburg had been given free reign to destroy the airfields before the gliders landed.

The Germans admitted losses of 6,200 men: 3,714 dead and 2,494 wounded. Today however, there are around 4,500 German graves at Maleme alone. Allied soldiers claimed to have buried 900 German corpses in Rethimnon and 1,250 corpses at Heraklion by the fifth day of battle. German losses may have been considerably higher than admitted. Winston Churchill claimed the Germans must have suffered well over 15,000 casualties and Admiral Cunningham felt that 22,000 had become casualties. Christopher Buckley in the book "Greece and Crete 1941" gave a cautious estimate of 16,800 casualties.

The Allies lost 3,500 soldiers: 1,751 dead, with an equal number wounded, and an enormous number captured (12,254 Commonwealth and 5,255 Greeks). There were also 1,828 dead and 183 wounded among the Navy. A total sum of 3,579 dead and 1900 wounded.

A large number of civilians were killed in the crossfire and died fighting as partisans. Many Cretans were murdered by the Germans in reprisals, both during the battle and in the occupation that followed. One Cretan source puts the number of Cretans killed by German action during the war at 6,593 men, 1,113 women and 869 children.

In the end the British (New Zealanders) lost the island, however it did show the stance of the British with regards to troops vs equipment:

During the evacuation Admiral Cunningham was determined that the "navy must not let the army down", when army generals feared he would lose too many ships Cunningham said that "It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition".

Which is in strong contrast to that of WWII SU of throwing lives away.

Csargo

07-09-2005, 15:58

The one reason Germany lost in WWII is Hitler it's that one reason they lost because Hitler thought he was a great commander and he wasn't if there would have been a better leader of Germany during WWII they could have destroyed UK and Russian.

Marquis of Roland

07-09-2005, 21:05

Some comments:

1. Whoever said that there is no glory in winning with mass numbers obviously came from a country/region where that is not their strength, i.e., Europeans.

2. T-34s were American-designed. So whoever the idiot was who picked building Shermans instead of T-34s ought to be shot, and then shot again.

3. T-34s initially had no radios. That was why Panzer-III/IV's could destroy them. If both tanks had radios and same training for the crew, T-34's will win everytime.

4. Paratroopers fight rather well even when not jumping out of airplanes.

5. German ships of the line were better made than their British counterparts. The crews were probably better-trained too.

6. The Kriegsmarine were unduly afraid of the British Royal Navy. True the Royal Navy outnumbered them, but the Germans did not realize they were qualitatively better then their British counterparts.

7. It is possible for the Soviets to survive a two-front war. They would've wiped the floor with the Japanese with minimal forces. The Japanese had inferior equipment in every category except airpower. The fact that the Japanese didn't like to retreat would've

8. Soviet war materiel was not CRAP. They had the best tank (overall), the best fighter/bomber, a very good submachine gun, decent machine guns and rifles. Best of all their stuff was made a lot more cheaper than other nations and was still very effective, and sometimes even superior.

9. Panther had a bum fuel-pump. It broke down a lot on the way to battles, which is not good but further exacerbated by allied air power.

10. Soviets still did not use modern tactics, they used WWI tactics. Just imagine a WWI commander with real tanks, and presto you have the same tactics.

thats it for now I think......

edyzmedieval

07-09-2005, 22:07

Hot topic indeed.... This topic is practically a book of WWII German history..... ~:cool:

Back to the topic.

Germany was a powerful war machine. They had well trained crews and they got some good medium tanks(well, they didn't withstand the T-34).
Don't forget, Germany in 1942-1943 was fighting on 3 fronts: Britain, North Africa and Russia. They suffered a big blow at El Alamein in 1942 then followed the Kursk, which practically was the turn of the war. This demonstrated that the German tanks were of inferior quality than the T-34. This made the Germans to rethink their strategies and equipment. They started the building of heavier and more powerful tanks( The Tiger tank was practically the only tank which could withstand the T-34). In parallel, the Russians developed also the T34-85, a better T34, heavier and with better armor and gun. The King Tiger, although it was slow, heavy and big, it was better than the KV85. It's 88mm gun was totally deadly.

The Luftwaffe were the best in the air. Even the British couldn't face them. They had great pilots and much better, planes. They really had some masters of engineering like the Messerschmitt BF109 and Focke Wulf 190, apart from the Junkers 87 Stuka and Junkers 88 Night plane.

As for infantry, they were very well trained and equipped. Unfortunately, Germany is of smaller size than Russia, and also the cold winter, that caused the collapse of the Wehrmacht.

Marquis of Roland

07-09-2005, 22:45

edyzmedieval, if the luftwaffe were better than the RAF, then why did they lose the Battle of Britain? They had numerical superiority against the RAF.... and if you say they had better pilots as well, shouldn't they have won?

The spitfire is a better fighter than the ME-109.

The T-34 was never an easy kill for the panzers. German tactics made it seem easy.

Lives are like foreign currency. In some countries lives are worth more than in other countries. So using mass infantry swarm tactics when you live in a country where lives are considerably worth less than say, a rifle, is not necessarily throwing lives away, its more like they're saving the limited assets they have while using assets they had in abundance, which makes sense. This kind of tactic beat the Germans in WWII and the Americans in Korea, two countries where technology and equipment are cheaper than lives, so you might even say this tactic is superior.

Anyone that doesn't agree with this, lets make a simple example/test: millions of ethnic African tribespeople died in Rwanda back in the 90's, and it wasn't as big a deal as 3000 Americans dying in New York on 9/11, or 700 injured in London a couple days ago.

Kagemusha

07-09-2005, 22:54

Very good points here. :bow:
I just would like to point out a one more weapon from German arsenal.The 88mm AntiAircraft gun,that could penetrate any used armortypes in 1941.Its range made in some cases possble to destroy Soviet tanks while they couldnt even shoot back. :bow:

AggonyDuck

07-10-2005, 13:05

Where did you read that the T-34 was designed by Americans? ~:confused:
From what I know only the suspension system was designed by an american, Walter Christie. ~;)

TosaInu

07-10-2005, 15:00

edyzmedieval, if the luftwaffe were better than the RAF, then why did they lose the Battle of Britain? They had numerical superiority against the RAF.... and if you say they had better pilots as well, shouldn't they have won?

I recall that the Germans almost did.

The Brits had some advantages:

-radar.
-fight on homeland. No need to fly a couple of hours first and then engage. Defend your home or die.
-radar.
-German pilots who were shot down either died or got captured. British pilots could survive and jump into another plane.
-radar.
-German pilots had to travel the Canal twice. Even when they managed to do this, this left less time for the actual fight (planes need fuel).
-radar.
-Despite all these advantages, the situation was pretty grim for UK (would this be because there were so many great German planes?). I recall there was an incident with bombing civilians by the Germans (not planned, I believe something went wrong due to stress/bad weather). The English sent some planes at night for a counter bombing. Hitler got outraged and ordered another civilian counter bombing (this was planned). This gave the RAF just a second to regroup and avoid total disaster.
-radar.
-I guess Hitler finally acted like a spoiled kid who didn't get his cookie in time and cancelled the invasion.
-radar.

This is the story I know. I am interested to hear whether this is correct, more or less.

Husar

07-10-2005, 16:39

The British also had a lot of foreign pilots for example from Poland or the US.

About the pilots fighting over Europe, you may want to compare these figures of the US (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html) and Germany (http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html).

Hmm, just found a site with long lists (http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/aces.html).

PanzerJaeger

07-10-2005, 18:07

They suffered a big blow at El Alamein in 1942 then followed the Kursk, which practically was the turn of the war. This demonstrated that the German tanks were of inferior quality than the T-34. This made the Germans to rethink their strategies and equipment. They started the building of heavier and more powerful tanks( The Tiger tank was practically the only tank which could withstand the T-34). In parallel, the Russians developed also the T34-85, a better T34, heavier and with better armor and gun. The King Tiger, although it was slow, heavy and big, it was better than the KV85. It's 88mm gun was totally deadly.

By Kursk, we had Panthers and Tigers in significant numbers.

The Panther's initial mechanical problems were more trouble for the Panzer crews than the T-34s which they blew by. The Tigers had very little problems.

In fact, the pz.IV did well at Kursk due to their extreme skill. My grandfather died in a pz.IV during the battle.

I personally believe, even though Hitlers Kursk plan was extremely ignorant and allowed the soviets to build up huge defenses, the battle could have been won had the allies not landed at Italy and Hitler called off the battle. Of course thats all speculation.

edyzmedieval

07-10-2005, 19:25

I recall that the Germans almost did.

The Brits had some advantages:

-radar.
-fight on homeland. No need to fly a couple of hours first and then engage. Defend your home or die.
-radar.
-German pilots who were shot down either died or got captured. British pilots could survive and jump into another plane.
-radar.
-German pilots had to travel the Canal twice. Even when they managed to do this, this left less time for the actual fight (planes need fuel).
-radar.
-Despite all these advantages, the situation was pretty grim for UK (would this be because there were so many great German planes?). I recall there was an incident with bombing civilians by the Germans (not planned, I believe something went wrong due to stress/bad weather). The English sent some planes at night for a counter bombing. Hitler got outraged and ordered another civilian counter bombing (this was planned). This gave the RAF just a second to regroup and avoid total disaster.
-radar.
-I guess Hitler finally acted like a spoiled kid who didn't get his cookie in time and cancelled the invasion.
-radar.

This is the story I know. I am interested to hear whether this is correct, more or less.

Roland, Tosa said everything needed to say.....

Marcellus

07-10-2005, 19:30

I guess Hitler finally acted like a spoiled kid who didn't get his cookie in time and cancelled the invasion.

Hitler cancelled operation Sealion in late September because it was clear by then that he could not gain air superiority before the weather deteriorated, making an invasion impossible.

edyzmedieval

07-10-2005, 19:45

I know....

Hitler really was an idiot..... He didn't let the smart guys to do his plans... He wanted to do the plans, and that caused the downfall, especially at Operation Barbarossa.

TosaInu

07-10-2005, 20:08

Hitler cancelled operation Sealion in late September because it was clear by then that he could not gain air superiority before the weather deteriorated, making an invasion impossible.

Thanks Marcellus.

It gave the Brits all time to recover and prepare the offensive.

The bad weather. How stupid/smart would it have been to just continue bugging the RAF? What the RAF did for a while was flying bombers to Berlin and other cities: bomb industrial complexes (I heard the effect on Germans industry wasn't that big at first). Couldn't the Luftwaffe just have done it as well, instead of just cancelling the whole project?

edyzmedieval

07-10-2005, 20:16

Thanks Marcellus.

It gave the Brits all time to recover and prepare the offensive.

The bad weather. How stupid/smart would it have been to just continue bugging the RAF? What the RAF did for a while was flying bombers to Berlin and other cities: bomb industrial complexes (I heard the effect on Germans industry wasn't that big at first). Couldn't the Luftwaffe just have done it as well, instead of just cancelling the whole project?

Tell it to Hitler....

He was in charge of everything....

Brenus

07-10-2005, 20:43

Hitler really was an idiot..... He didn't let the smart guys to do his plans: Because the smart guys failed miserably to deliver their promises. I am not Hitler’s fan, but without him, the generals would have followed the good old Von Schleiffen’s plan (modernised version) to attack France through Belgium, where the 1st French Mechanised Army was waiting for them (and the English BEF).
Most of the called Hitler’s mistakes of the first part of the war were mostly from his generals who blame the dead after.
The halt of the panzer against Dunkirk was partly because (and every soldier in a tank unit knows it) a tank unit need to repair. The attrition is very high (especially in 1940) and to change a part like caterpillar take time. The French were still holding Calais and Lille and some Panzer had to go to prevent any surprise (like the one during the WW1).
In Russia, in front of Moscow, if Hitler wouldn’t have forbidden the withdrawal, the German would have been slaughtered… Read Rokossovski, please… :book:

Sea Lion was cancelled because Hitler lost the Battle. Point. ~:)

The reason why apparently the German pilots are better is because they were never withdrawn from the front. The allies used their aces to train their recruits. So, at the end of the war, you had pilot like Novotny (hoops, wrong example), or Galland who were untouchable and an enormous mass of inexperienced pilots who were just dead in front of the allies…
The Spitfire was better than the Me109. The problem is the Battle of England was mostly fought by Hurricane… So, the German pilots lost the battle because wrong tactics, wrong strategy, wrong planes and better (mainly) British pilots. :dizzy2:

“Kursk plan was extremely ignorant”: Not really, but simply too obvious. The temptation was too much to try to trap again a huge number of Russian troops. The defence lines were never a problem before (in fact they were but the OKW refuse to understand that the Blitzkrieg was over).
I disagree with you on Kursk, the Russian lines weren’t only partially touched.
I read few months ago that Hitler decided to launch Citadel Operation because he started secret negotiations with the Soviets and wanted to do it in position of power. Apparently, the Russians wanted a return on the 1941 borders (including their part of Poland). Hitler refused. Imagine what if he hadn’t… But that is (it is a possibility) why Kursk happened.
Hitler was famous for his gambles. He won in France, lost every where else…