Fighting on the eastern front: WWII

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Ok, let's begin with the invading armies in Barbarossa. First of all, the German troops entered operation Barbarossa with 3500 tanks, whereas the Soviets had approx. 20,000. As well as tank superiority though, let's take at the numerical advantage.

July 1941, though, amounted to a little more than 5 million men, which was more than the German land forces deployed for Barbarossa.

The German army mobilized 3.2 million men for the operation. The soviets? 5 million.

The number of artillery pieces and aircraft was also heavily in the Soviets' favor

Again, an other important fact. The Soviets had more artillery as well as aircraft. But before we go any further into the operation on the ground during fighting, let's look at a little insight of the brilliance of the German commanders in WWII. First of all we have Adolf Hitler, a brutal man, but a clever man none the less. By leading Stalin into a false sense of security he prepares for war with his grand army. Is that all? Of course not...the Germans have much more up their sleave. Reinhard Hydrich also had a way to trick Stalin into killing his own generals.

He is believed to be the creator of the forged documents of Russian correspondence with the German high command. While it is now known that the Stalin's Great Purge of the Soviet military officer corps was at most tangentially related to this forgeries...

Now that we have seen a bit of the prerequisites the Germans had for the operation we can dive back into the military aspect of the war in the east.

Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941 and lasted until December of the same year, but there is a smaller operation (or battle) in this period called the battle of Bialystok - Minsk. As this part of the operation commenses, key targets are taken out by German air campaigns allowing the German ninth and fourth armies to cross the border. General Pavlov assembled his army and within two days were in the game. They counter attacked the Germans with the 6th, 11th Mechanized and 6th Cavalry Corps.

This attack failed with heavy losses, although it may have allowed some units to escape the western encirclement towards Minsk. In the evening of 25 June, the German XXXXVII. Panzerkorps cut between Slonim and Volkovysk, forcing Pavlov to order the withdrawal of all troops in the salient behind the Shchara River at Slonim to avoid encirclement

As you can see. The first counter attack is repulsed. A second counter-attack by the 20th Mechanized and 4th Airborne Corps fail as well and by June 30th the pocket was completely closed. In it, the German forces surround and eventually destroy the Soviet 3rd, 10th, 13th and portions of the 4th Soviet Armies. The remainder of the Soviet 4th Army fell back eastwards towards the Berezina River. In a matter of 17 days the Soviets lose 420,000 men. Let's jump ahead here to save some time.

The battle of Leningrad, is not the most famous battles, but deffinetly the most famous seige. By December the German army had advanced 600 km to Leningrad and 800 km to Moscow. In Leningrad there wasn't much to tell. The Germans did a good job of basically starving the city into submission. They refused to assault the massivly fortified city, but instead stood waiting outside the gates of Leningrad. They started on September 8th of 1941 and was not taken down until January of 1944 with operation Spark.

In Moscow it was a different story. About an even number of troops from both sides fought in this battle. The lead German Panzer Groupe was about 19 miles from Moscow. At this time fresh Siberian troops ready for winter war were transfered to the front. The Soviet winter had given the Germans a terrible time and the added stress of troops equipped and trained for harsh weather fighting were there. Even with this sort of pressure the Germans hold firm. They hold the line for a long time despite large numbers of men dieing from cold as well as food ration problems. Approx. 248,000 German soldiers die during the battle of Moscow. Many from the elements NOT the Soviet soldiers. The Soviets however, are not so lucky. With the support of good resources as well as winter clothing they are for the most part protected from the winter, but still manage to lose 650,000 - 1.28Million troops. A staggering number compared to a demoralized German army.

By August 21, 1942, the German army had completed there efforts for the "pincer" movement they had been so diligently working for. The German forces start with the Luftwaffe bombing the city to rubble. By the end of August the German troops had taken over the Volga north of Stalingrad.

The life expectancy of a newly-arrived Soviet private in the city dropped to less than twenty-four hours.

After November 19th, the Soviets counter attacked, but it was not the valient Germans they defeated. It was instead, the weak south flank held by the Romanians. The Soviets led attacks on all sides of the German 6th army (as well as parts of the 4th Panzer army).

The Soviets had completely encircled the 6th army, as well as many of the Axis death toll numbers come from Hungrian, Romanian and other countries rather than German, shows more of the German strength. Moreover, the casualties STILL do not add up. Even when encircled and lacking much needed supplies the axis casualties hold up at around 740,000 killed, while the Russians, with many advantages manage to again lose 750,000 + soldiers. Take into consideration only 400,000 of the axis casualties were German.

One more thread of long exhausting research like the snipers thread

Have fun!

[Csargo]

Is this just for your fun Alexander? Or are we supposed to argue with you. If you would like I have no problem with that :P But other than that very good post.

[Reverend Joe]

What you don't really take into account is that the Soviets 1) started the war with crap machinery and 2) used a lot of mass assault tactics, because they relied so heavily on levies.

And you may point out the staggering losses, but you do not point out the important factor, in the long run: it worked. Ghastly and bloody as hell, but it worked. The Russians could afford to lost many times as many conscripts as the Elite german armies, who had one hell of a time training new soldiers up to the crack level they had once had.

[Strike For The South]

THE GERMANS WERE NOT SUPER SOLDIERS. As for the Russikes high losses they can be to attributed to the fact they were commies and to the fact that all commies suck enso facto Russikes suck. Besides America won WW2 single handedly with no help. If you disagree you are a commie and as mentioned in said post you SUCK!

[BalkanTourist]

I am sorry, I have to say this, but I had a lot more respect for you, SFTS. That's a very childish post.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Alexanderofmacedon]

First of all we have Adolf Hitler, a brutal man, but a clever man none the less. By leading Stalin into a false sense of security he prepares for war with his grand army.

Not really clever. If he was clever he should have prepared the army for winter - it is IMPOSSIBLE to win before winter in Russia - only ythe armies which were prepared ( Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles) were visctorious, others died.

Of course not...the Germans have much more up their sleave. Reinhard Hydrich also had a way to trick Stalin into killing his own generals.

It is a joke ? A myth, Stalin got rid of enemies using Hydrich as a perfect excuse, besides these men were hardly brilliant. Stalin needed fanatically loyal men so he killed those with too much ambition.

After November 19th, the Soviets counter attacked, but it was not the valient Germans they defeated. It was instead, the weak south flank held by the Romanians. The Soviets led attacks on all sides of the German 6th army (as well as parts of the 4th Panzer army).

Yes, Germans never lose ! Actually they should have use better protection if they thought that there will be a counterattack - in other words - they sucked ! It was German idea to keep Romanians here and they payed the price when the badly armed allies were overrun.

Even when encircled and lacking much needed supplies the axis casualties hold up at around 740,000 killed, while the Russians, with many advantages manage to again lose 750,000 + soldiers. Take into consideration only 400,000 of the axis casualties were German.

So ? The Russians ALWAYs were losing more soldiers than their enemies - perhaps only during the war with Turkey in 1878 it was different, but the truth is simple THEY NEVER CARED. The difference would have to be massive to make them ask for peace just like in the wars with Poland in 1578-82 or in 1918-20. The Germans were unable to achieve that so they lost.

Regards Cegorach

[Gurkhal]

Yes, Germans never lose ! Actually they should have use better protection if they thought that there will be a counterattack - in other words - they sucked ! It was German idea to keep Romanians here and they payed the price when the badly armed allies were overrun.

If they thought there would be a counter-attack, then the flank protection would be better. But the Germans belived the Russians to have exhausted themselves over the last two years, something which seemed rather realistic at the time if you ask me. And since then a Sovjet counter-attack would seem unlikly it would make sense to keep the low-quality troops at a place where fighting in any greater degree wasn't likly to happen and from where high-quality troops could then be taken from simple guard duties and put where they were needed.

Once the offensive came the Germans and their allies were simply to supprised to be able to respond quickly enough and powerful enough. Hitler's well known confidence in that fixed defences could withstand anything also made what it could to make the disaster greater.

In my opinion the Germans didn't really do anything wrong, it was the Sovjets who did things right.

[Keba]

And the high losses were that sole bit of luck for the West. Despite the numerical superiority, by the time the Red Army reached Germany, both sides were running out of men. The situation also saw the transition of the Red Army to smaller numbers and better equipment, to make up for the lack of manpower.

IIRC, casualties for the Soviets amounted, overall, to some 20,000,000 people, some 8,000,000 soldiers. This number does not take into account the wounded and maimed that could not continue waging war.

The Soviets had high losses because that is the way Russians waged war. It was like that before the Soviet Union, and it was like that in WWII. One might say that they conformed to the rule that soldiers should fear their own officers more than the enemy.

Hitler's greatest miscalculation was the attack on Yugoslavia and Greece. That cost him months. Second was the insistence on concentrating Panzers on the north part of the front, a terrain which did not suit them. Third was the order for the Panzer divisions to halt a few hundred kilometers from Moscow so the infantry could catch up ... which gave time for the defenders to prepare.

Now, for all those mistakes, the Germans would have won if they faced any other army. The Soviets were fully willing to send their men to die so they could accomplish the objective (in the battle of Stalingrad, a division was sent out against the Germans to buy time for the rest of the defenders, the officers knew full well it was a suicide mission, the soldiers did too, and yet they went in, and suffered 99% losses). If they faced any other army, especially those of the Western Allies, they would have won, simple as that.

[Kraxis]

IIRC, casualties for the Soviets amounted, overall, to some 20,000,000 people, some 8,000,000 soldiers. This number does not take into account the wounded and maimed that could not continue waging war.

You recall correctly, if not rightly... Yes I know it is odd.

These figures are what Krushev let out. A sort of "look how bad we suffered". But these last 15 years it has been calculated that the Russian losses amounted to perhaps as much as a couple million past 30 million. With almost half being military.

In Georgia, Stalin's homeland, 95% of the male population in fighting capacity was killed, and since it wasn't really occupied for long, this has to have been due to Stalin himself ("what did you call my moustache? Boys take him out and shoot him") and military action. Pretty steep I would say.

In any case the Russians won it. Germany always lacked those last few divisions they had bottled up in France, Africa, Norway, Yugoslavia ect ect. Some have estimated that five infantry divisions would have been enough to take Moscow, completely surround Leningrad and hold the line during the winter offensives. Small margin... Whether you beleive it is up to yourself, this can't really be proven.

[Keba]

The main problem with counting casualties is the chaos of the first years. The dead were not properly logged during the retreat. Add to that the attempts to form a milita to fight, the losses are likely to be much higher than the official 8,668,400 soldiers. Some authors place it as high as 26,400,000 dead soldiers, although most find that number unrealistic, and estimates are around 16,000,000 soldiers dead total during the war.

The other problem is the casualties of civilian populations which, due to the fact that they often include the dead soldiers, range widely, from 17,000,000 (Sokolov) to as high as 40,000,000 (Kozlov, although this number includes the dead from other causes as well (frostbite and starvation to name two), as well as potential demographic growth loss due to casualties)).

Nevertheless, the numbers of killed are staggering. Not to even begin counting the injured, wounded who might have died later (medical casualties alone are 18,000,000, 15,000,000 of which are wounds or psychiatric disablement). And those figures are solely for the Soviets.

The Soviet Union bore the brunt of World War II, and it is, like mentioned alredy, doubtful that any other nation in the world would have continued waging war following such losses ... they also prevented a third world war from being started following the second one, Soviet losses were simply too high for the war to continue (by the siege of Berlin, Soviet troops weren't all that different in composition from the German units, a lot of young boys and old men, very few actual soldiers).

[Kraxis]

It might not hav been clear, but my figures were totals.

Total casualties should indeed include non-violent and accidental deaths. That means starvation, cold (what about the many soldiers that died in the Winter War for instance?), accidents in production of warmateriel (when the increase of warproduction is significant it must be assumed that those that died in explosions for isntance would not have happened in peacetime), and a host of other reasons.

Demographic losses cannot be used in this case, however it can be used to broadly tell how many people the country could have had if the war hadn't happened.

[Randarkmaan]

Hmm... makes me remember something I once read...
It said that the Soviet war effort in World War II could be summed up in one word: sacrifice...
Pretty true actually.

Also, one thing that I believe the Russians learned during WWII is that in a REAL war you won't necessary have the time to train the soldiers how to clean their weapons to prevent them jamming, which can be evidenced in the simple, yet effective Soviet weapons requiring minimal maintenance.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Is this just for your fun Alexander? Or are we supposed to argue with you. If you would like I have no problem with that :P But other than that very good post.

I just wanted to spark new discussion, which it seems to have done. And yes, this was just for my 'fun' I guess...I'm such a nerd!

[Alexanderofmacedon]

[QUOTE=cegorach]

Not really clever. If he was clever he should have prepared the army for winter - it is IMPOSSIBLE to win before winter in Russia - only ythe armies which were prepared ( Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles) were visctorious, others died.




It is a joke ? A myth, Stalin got rid of enemies using Hydrich as a perfect excuse, besides these men were hardly brilliant. Stalin needed fanatically loyal men so he killed those with too much ambition.





Yes, Germans never lose ! Actually they should have use better protection if they thought that there will be a counterattack - in other words - they sucked ! It was German idea to keep Romanians here and they payed the price when the badly armed allies were overrun.



So ? The Russians ALWAYs were losing more soldiers than their enemies - perhaps only during the war with Turkey in 1878 it was different, but the truth is simple THEY NEVER CARED. The difference would have to be massive to make them ask for peace just like in the wars with Poland in 1578-82 or in 1918-20. The Germans were unable to achieve that so they lost.

Regards Cegorach

I would expect this from a Pole! Excellent post.

[Strike For The South]

I am sorry, I have to say this, but I had a lot more respect for you, SFTS. That's a very childish post.

Ahh that may be but I know AOM in real life and his German supersoldiers get tiresome. Yes the Germans were better in nearly everyway but the Russians had #s cliamate and they were fighting for there very survuvial. I doubt the Germans couldve have ever taken the Russian bear down excluding an equal strong japeneese force coming in from Sibera. Even then the Russian bear is a very formidable foe.

[Keba]

Victory was possible ... in fact, victory only ceased to be possible following Operation Citadel, the battle of Kursk. At that point, the Germans finally went on the defensive, however, prior to that, they had the chance. In fact, had it not been for Hitler's intention to rip Yugoslavia apart and aid Italy in Greece, he would have had that extra month that the Germans needed. As it turned out, the Eastern Front was one series of bungles following a series of bungles. It was like that on both sides, except that Stalin learned to listen to his officers ... Hitler never did.

The German's weren't supersoldiers. However, on their side they had discpline, training, equipment and skilled officers. The Russians had numbers, numbers, numbers, ruthless but efficient soldiers, weather, weather and will.

Now, the Russians could have won a lot earlier, too. The battle for Moscow was their second chance (the first was the defensive line abandoned following the conquest of Poland) ... had Stalin not ordered an attack across the front, the Soviets could have punched through German lines and driven them a fair way back, threatning Army Groups North and South's flanks.

[Gurkhal]

I don't think that the Russians could've forced the Germans back more than temporary in winter 41 and spring 42. The Germans were far to strong and the Russians to unskilled in mobile offensive warfare to encircle the Germans and be able to hold them inside for a longer time. That do not exclude the possibility that with a more limited offensive the Sovjets could have taken some key areas and jammed the German summer offensive a fair bit as well as having more forces left to fight said German offensive.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ah..the great debate resurfaces once more.

Could the Germans have defeated Soviet Russia?

Good sources for the argument:

Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted, by Russell H.S. Stolfi. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. Hardcover. 280 pages. Photographs. Maps. Notes. Bibliography. Index.

-- argues that the Wermacht had the tools and Hitler had the will, but that Hitler did not have the nerve to follow through properly with a Blitz.

Slaughterhouse: Handbook of the Eastern Front, by David Glantz, et. al. Aberjona Press.

-- a more conventional view, but emphasizing the many operations that have not received the publicity of major actions such as those at Lenigrad and Stalingrad. Some interesting things on Soviet defeats in '42 and '43 as their new mechanized forces learned their trade.

[ChewieTobbacca]

I think what most people CAN agree on is that had Germany unleashed this attack on any other country in the world, it's highly unlikely that country could have came out victorious.

All the more annoying when I hear the uneducated say that the U.S. is almost entirely why WW2 was won...

[Keba]

The Allied commanders were less bold for a very simple reason. Western democracies cared about casualty lists in combat, the Russians didn't. The western allies attempted to minimize casualites on their side, which made them appear somewhat indecisive.

The Soviets simply didn't care ... there was a quote of Zhukov's (I think, it could have been Konev, though): 'If my infantry runs into a mine-field, I want them to march over it like it wasn't there.' Hardly an attitued a western commander would have had.

And that attitude won the war.

Interesting tidbit ... the USA provided trucks for what would become the famed Katyusha. The words USA were stenciled on the truck above the white star. The Soviets repainted the star red, but the letters remained (they didn't have that much time), so the common agreeance among the soldiers was that the letters stood for: to kill that son-of-a-bitch Adolf.

[Pannonian]

The Allied commanders were less bold for a very simple reason. Western democracies cared about casualty lists in combat, the Russians didn't. The western allies attempted to minimize casualites on their side, which made them appear somewhat indecisive.

The Soviets simply didn't care ... there was a quote of Zhukov's (I think, it could have been Konev, though): 'If my infantry runs into a mine-field, I want them to march over it like it wasn't there.' Hardly an attitued a western commander would have had.

And that attitude won the war.

The rationale was that the principal purpose of a minefield is not to destroy a unit, but to pin it down so that supporting artillery can blanket them with fire. Walking through a minefield as if it didn't exist was therefore actually the best way of minimising casualties. IIRC British paratroopers in the Falklands took the same view, ignoring the relatively minor problem of the minefield to get to the major problem of the Argentine troops defending the position.

[Mount Suribachi]

The Allied commanders were less bold for a very simple reason. Western democracies cared about casualty lists in combat, the Russians didn't. The western allies attempted to minimize casualites on their side, which made them appear somewhat indecisive.

Also, the allies just weren't as populous as Russia. By 1944 the British were disbanding regiments in order to keep other units at full strength, Canada was letting prisoners out of jail to fill the ranks etc. Only America had anything like the numbers of men Russia had and they had 3 things draining their manpower that Russia didn't. An enormous Air Force. An enormous Navy. And a war on either side of the globe.

And given the low life expectancy of green soldiers in the US Army due to their abominable replacements system, their GIs didn't fare much better than their Soviet counterparts.

[Randarkmaan]

And given the low life expectancy of green soldiers in the US Army due to their abominable replacements system, their GIs didn't fare much better than their Soviet counterparts.

Hmm... I haven't heard much about this "abominable replacement system" before, would you be keen to tell me about it? Because I'm actually pretty interesting in getting to know (no sarcasm).

[Kraxis]

I haven't heard that as well, but I will try to explain what it could be.

The US doctrine was centered on Tail rather than Teeth. Meaning the best went to the rear, while the infantry got what the other had left over (sorry if this offends someone, but that was how it was, and the other services couldn't take ALL the best anyway). So technically the infantry wasn't really that great (oddly enough the worst seems to have been the mechanized infantry, also called Gypsies for their tendency to collect stuff and bring it along on their transports), and the Tail was huge!
There is a truth in the American saying: "Behind every fighting man are 20 other men." That is literal, if a bit more than the truth.

So actually the US forces generally lacked infantrymen, while on paper they were ready for combat. That meant as soon as losses were taken, they hit harder than either the German or British suffered. It also meant that the average infantryman would not likely have as good a chance of survival as the British infantryman (though that can also be contributed to the British lack of risking the infantry and using armour instead, while the US used the infantry in the first lines).
The percentagewise losses among fighting troops could very well be very high, if not all that immense in actual numbers.

[Mount Suribachi]

Kraxis hits on part of what I was on about. I believe only 1 in 4 of the US Army in WW2 were "front line", although that number may be skewed by the fact that the Air Force was part of the Army at that time. Also, army recruits got a choice as to which branch of the service they wished to join. This meant that the air force got lots of smart, highly motivated pilots but the army proper lacked good quality officers and the infantry became something of a dumping ground for the worst quality recruits. This problem was further compounded by the rule that exempted 10% of college-eligable draftees from military service (to try and preserve some of the bright young minds)

Again, as Kraxis hints at, US Army doctrine differed from say, British Army doctrine. The sizes and force compositions of both armies reflected this. A British infantry Brigade might have 3 Battalions. 2 would be on the front line, the 3rd would be in reserve/refitting/recuperating and after several days would replace one of the other 2 battalions. The US Army on the other hand kept their units on the front line and they rarely got a rest. If they took heavy casualties, they wouldn't be pulled back and refitted, they would be sent a batch of replacements and kept on the line. The only way out was to be killed or wounded.

And herein lies the problem. Replacements were taken from a giant pool known as Replacement Depots (the infamous and hated "repple depples"), and apportioned as requested by unit commanders at the front. They were just sent to reinforce units to fill gaps. These green young soldiers were naturally not welcomed by the veterans at the front and little attempt was made to integrate them into their squads/platoons and they usually were dead/wounded very quickly. I read one GI saying that if you survived 5 days you were considered a veteran.

The replacement pools were also filled out by wounded soldiers returning to duty. And they were treated just like the soldiers fresh out of training - assigned without a care or a thought to which unit they had belonged to before they were wounded.

And this goes to the heart of the problem. When it all comes down to it, men don't fight for King or Country, they fight for their mates either side of them. Except, when you're thrown in with a bunch of strangers who don't know you or trust you, that motivation that makes you fight disappears.

It also contrasts again with the British regimental system. Men in a unit were generally all from the same area. They trained together. When they were wounded, they were returned to their old unit when they recovered. The Germans also did the latter, the only American units that followed this practise were specialised units like the Airborne or Rangers.

What this policy ultimately meant was the US Infantry divisions often lacked cohesion and continuity, resulting in higher casualties than maybe they should. Between D-Day and VE-Day four US Inf divisions suffered over 200% casualties. Several others approached that.

Stephen Ambrose goes into this in some detail in Band of Brothers and especially Citizen Soldiers

[Randarkmaan]

Hmm... Interesting...
Anyway, in theory how many men could the US have fielded during World War II if they tried to draft as many as would be... managable?

Which also makes me wonder:
How was this in the Soviet army? Just wondering... And btw didn't the Soviets use quite a lot of ad hoc units?

[Keba]

The Soviets generally tended to throw their best into the fray. Guard divisions were generally considered the best, and they recieved the essentially treatment as the rest. The best were those that survived.

The Soviets used ad hoc units for the simple reason that they suffered extremely high losses ... survivors were merged into units that were more along the lines of full units (that is not to say that they were full, by the end of the war all Soviet divisions were esentially half-strength, although heavily mechanized).

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Let me tell you something pretty funny. I'm in a club (yes I'm VERY much a military history nerd) at school called Young Tacticians. Anyway, we had 12 people and we played a paintball match against Young Independents, who have about 80 people. It was to work on squad tactics and we seemed to be the Germans as the 80 other people kept charging us until we completely obliterated them only losing 3 guys. It was pretty badass if you ask me. Of course like 8 of our guys are totally uncordinated in every way, but oh well, we carried their weight for them...

[Redleg]

Hmm... Interesting...
Anyway, in theory how many men could the US have fielded during World War II if they tried to draft as many as would be... managable?

The numbers I have seen show appoximately 10 million in uniform at the end of WW2. Given the population base of the United States at the time, it had just begun to tap into the resources of nations manpower to field the military.

Now the population at the time was somewhere between 120 million and 150 million depending on what year you wish to use.

[Randarkmaan]

That makes me remember something that I've been told, which I find quite funny.
There was a NATO excersize in Finnmark a while ago (the 80's) and as in most military excersizes there were 'combat simulations' and such. One of these 'combat simulations' involved a British batallion (or a company, don't quite remember) that was supposed to hold a hill against an attack from the enemy, in this case played by the Norwegian Army. The Norwegian unit chosen was popularily called 'samebattaljonen' ('the sami battalion) and consisted of conscripts from Northern Norway, mostly Finnmark.
Now, instead of using 'traditional tactics', that is to say firing flanking and all that stuff, they just ran right up the hill and just beat the living crap out of the British troops up there. I do think however that they didn't care that they were 'shot' and just carried on nonetheless, but a pretty amusing story anyway.