Why so much speculations about Germany in WWII?

[Papewaio]

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.
THe Russians do not care about losses - never did - so this is not important too.

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]

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]

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]

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[cegorach]

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.



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.

[Franconicus]

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 :
http://www.iremember.ru/index_e.htm
http://luthier.stormloader.com/home.html

I think you will like them!

[Papewaio]

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.

[Husar]

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..... ).

[AggonyDuck]

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.