How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#136

Post by BDV » 01 May 2016, 14:48

doogal wrote:They lasted as long as Adolf Hitler lived. If he had lived longer they would have fought longer.
Well, did 3rdReich lose because Adolf Schicklgruber "Hitler" committed suicide, or did Adolf Schicklgruber "Hitler" commit suicide because Sovjets had him surrounded (i.e. 3rd Reich had lost)?

And should have Adolf Schicklgruber "Hitler" commited suicide when British unceremoniously interrupted his Soiree with Molotoff by throwing bombs at him (i.e. 3Rd Reich had already lost)?!?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#137

Post by ljadw » 01 May 2016, 17:04

"Lasted " is not "loose " .The Germans fought as long as Hitler lived .When he died, they gave up .


User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#138

Post by BDV » 02 May 2016, 05:07

Well did 3rd Reich last as long as the Fuhrer,
Or the Fuhrer lasted as long as the 3rdReich?!
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#139

Post by Appleknocker27 » 02 May 2016, 18:02

BDV wrote:
They had exactly 12 months from the Armistice with the French to the opening salvo of Barbarossa.

Funny how the Finns could do it (expanding greatly their heavy artillery park between winter war and the continuation war; using a hodge-podge of foreign equipment - French, British, German, and American; and trophy sovjet guns to boot).

Well, Germans too, deploying 177 Czech tanks to frontline troops in less than 6 months. But somehow they develop an acute case of stupid (Victory Disease?) in the wake of the victory in France.

Which brings us to the 3-man tank business ("germans had no use for such flimsily-crewed devices"). Which argument falls aside when you realize that the Germans deployed no less than 750 three men tanks in Barbarossa (PzII); without counting PzAbt 211 which deployed 90 (ninety) S35!
Ok... So did they do a good job then? Your position was that the Germans did a horrible job of utilizing French equipment and industry.

I more or less pointed out the difficulty involved in attempting to do what you were apparently suggesting, but now you are saying they did well?

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#140

Post by doogal » 02 May 2016, 19:45

BDV wrote - Well did 3rd Reich last as long as the Fuhrer,
Or the Fuhrer lasted as long as the 3rdReich?!
The idea of the Third Reich died when Hitler did. But you can make a rational argument for both.
All the occupied areas immediately return to their original nationalities apart from the contested areas.
Hitler was not only the executive authority but the core of Nazi Germany, the nature and direction of the Third Reich was attached to his person and persona in a symbiotic existence.
If he had lived longer it would have lived longer till his removal.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#141

Post by steverodgers801 » 02 May 2016, 20:35

the third reich officially lasted until the surrender

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#142

Post by doogal » 02 May 2016, 23:05

But when Donitz signed the surrender as President of Germany it was Germanys Surrender and the declaration regarding the defeat of Germany states that the Third Reich was totally dissolved at the death of Hitler. Although this document was agree dupon on the 5th June

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#143

Post by BDV » 03 May 2016, 20:09

Appleknocker27 wrote: BDV:Which brings us to the 3-man tank business ("germans had no use for such flimsily-crewed devices"). Which argument falls aside when you realize that the Germans deployed no less than 750 three men tanks in Barbarossa (PzII); without counting PzAbt 211 which deployed 90 (ninety) S35!

Ok... So did they do a good job then? Your position was that the Germans did a horrible job of utilizing French equipment and industry.

I more or less pointed out the difficulty involved in attempting to do what you were apparently suggesting, but now you are saying they did well?

No; it shows that "French equipment had cooties" is a bunch of BS. How can "French tanks had 3 man crews" be an excuse when the Axis deployed more than a thousand 3 man-crew tanks on the OstFront. Germans themselves deployed more than eight hundred!!

Pz Abt 211 rusted on the approaches to Murmansk, as the Germans never dedicated the adequate manpower and the deployed troops never had the adequate equipment to pursue a successful offensive near the Artic Circle.

Meanwhile Romanian tankers got crushed in their R2 tin cans under the tracks of T34 swarm in November 1942 (also crushed were the ~30 Pz38s of the 22nd Panzer; surely having 4 men crews was good consolation!)
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#144

Post by Appleknocker27 » 04 May 2016, 14:44

BDV wrote:No; it shows that "French equipment had cooties" is a bunch of BS. How can "French tanks had 3 man crews" be an excuse when the Axis deployed more than a thousand 3 man-crew tanks on the OstFront. Germans themselves deployed more than eight hundred!!
How many were in front line application as opposed to those used in anti-partisan/security roles, deployed on trains or as tractors? The 3 man crew/1 man turret is only one aspect of why French tanks were used as they were. Factory support of parts and ammunition played a very prominent role. The financial aspect of investing time and money into an obsolete foreign tank with no ability to upgrade it played a large role as well. The thought process behind the use of French equipment was sound IMHO, looking at it purely from a logistical/financial standpoint.
Pz Abt 211 rusted on the approaches to Murmansk, as the Germans never dedicated the adequate manpower and the deployed troops never had the adequate equipment to pursue a successful offensive near the Artic Circle.

Meanwhile Romanian tankers got crushed in their R2 tin cans under the tracks of T34 swarm in November 1942 (also crushed were the ~30 Pz38s of the 22nd Panzer; surely having 4 men crews was good consolation!)
The Romanians also had R35's, but their 37mm gun fared no better against T34's, so what's the point?
The only tank that would have been able to help the Romanians was the S35, of which the Germans captured around 300. The idea that the Romanians could have benefitted from a handful of these is not very viable. How many would the Germans give up? How in the world would Romania be able to keep them running (lack of spare parts, service parts, etc.)? The odds against effective use are huge...

Edit: "The operational flaw was its poor mechanical reliability. The suspension units were too weak and too complicated, demanding enormous maintenance efforts, especially since the cast armour modules did not allow an easy access to the suspension and engine.[4] Repairing broken tracks in the field was well-nigh impossible.[12] This had been caused by the fact that there was no central institution regulating French tank development.[citation needed] The Army branches issued very vague specifications, leaving it to private enterprise to come up with precise proposals. The French machine tool national stock was relatively outdated and tank designs reflected the limited existing production facilities. To introduce a Christie suspension — the obvious solution — demanded a thorough industrial modernization and the raising of quality standards."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMUA_S35#Foreign_service

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#145

Post by steverodgers801 » 04 May 2016, 20:39

Those PZ 2 were phased out quickly and converted to support vehicles.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#146

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 May 2016, 09:48

steverodgers801 wrote:Those PZ 2 were phased out quickly and converted to support vehicles.
They were never meant to be more than training vehicles anyway. Only the timing of the war brought PzI and PzII(A-C) into the battle, as they has so few of the III's and IV's (which were also disguised by name as training vehicles) Company commander's training vehicle(PzIII) and Battalion commander's training vehicle(PzIV).And then subsequently having so few Med tanks, kept the PZII in production and improvements made in the later models, to make it a somewhat viable Lt tank(D-E).

As to French tanks, yes they were not very mechanically reliable, with a lack or commonality of parts and equipment training and surely would have been a mechanical disaster if sent in large numbers to the East Front given East Front environmental elements and already severely overtaxed/unprepared German logistical system. IIRC - Guderian, may have called for some French tanks to be used in the East at one point, and his book would be a good source to find all the info on the PZ1 and II also being used early war.


As it was , Maj.-Col.? Becker did manage to make some fair assault/sp guns, out of a few hundred(more could have been done in this area and what was done was too little too late) . Becker hard a hard time getting his conversion ideas into production. I think a couple SP models did make it to the East in some small numbers. (IIRC)
A lot of the actual French tanks were used in fixed fortifications and local area security,
rather than waste/park new Panzers in France.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#147

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 May 2016, 17:41

ljadw wrote:Other point : it is not so that LL motor vehicles to the SU outweighed German car production : German automobile production was 163000,trucks :316000,half-tracks : 43000 Total = 522000 (Source : USSBS )
?
German production of motor vehicles 1939-1944:

Wheeled trucks (lorries) - 463,949
Tracked Trucks - 42,404
Total trucks - 506,353

Passenger Cars - 465,303

Motorcycles - 511,551

Kettenkrad - 8,345

Zgkw - 61,260
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#148

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 May 2016, 18:51

ljadw wrote:No : till 1944 was the Soviet truck production bigger than what they received from LL .
?
Total Soviet production of trucks in the second half of 1941 was 62,000, and then dropped precipitously to 35,000 in 1942, 49,200 in 1943, 60,600 in 1944, and 74,700 in 1945, for a wartime grand total of 281,500.

So Soviet production of trucks in the second half of 1941 was 62,000, while Lend-Lease shipments from the US were 8,300 (11.8% of the total). Granted that only 1,506 arrived prior to 1 January 1942, but Soviet production in 1942 was only 35,000, while Lend-Lease from the US was 79,000 (69.3% of the total). Soviet production in 1943 was 49,200, while Lend-Lease from the US was 144,400 (74.6% of the total). Soviet production for 1944 and 1945 combined was 135,300, while Lend-Lease from the US through August 1945 was 188,700 (58.2% of the total). By 1 May 1945 32.8% of the Soviet Army truck park consisted of Lend-Lease vehicles.

Thus, from June 1941 through December 1942 alone, Soviet domestic production was 97,000, while US Lend-Lease was 87,300 (47.4% of the total). I have a difficult time not seeing that as significant.

In terms of stocks, there were 272,600 motor vehicles available to the Soviet at the beginning of the war. They received 281,500 from domestic production (204,900 went the the Red Army) and 420,400 from the US, captured 115,300, while losing c. 159,000 and on 1 May 1945 had 664,400 on hand with the Red Army.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#149

Post by Boby » 05 May 2016, 19:44

Richard, it would be very helpful if you gives the source of this very interesting data.

Boby

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?

#150

Post by ljadw » 05 May 2016, 20:45

From Lend-Lease to Russia : the First Moscow protocol june 1941/june 1942 (with as source : Vorsin in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies Volume 10 june 1997 :"Motor Vehicle transport deliveries by Lend Lease )

Red Army Motor Vehicle Park:

22 june 1941 :272600 :100 % domestic

1/1/1942 : 318500 : 99.6 % domestic

1/1 /1943 : 404500 : 99.6 % domestic

1/1 1944 : 496000 : 77.9 % domestic

1/1 1945 : 621200 : 63.6 % domestic

1/5 / 1945 : 664400 : 58.1 % domestic


Imported :

in 1942 : 22000

In 1943 : 94100

In 1944 : 191300

1945 : 218100

Thus in 1942/1943 there was an import of 116100 and a production in 1941 (second half),1942/1943 of 146200, this indicates that till 1944 the Soviet production was higher than the import.

Last point some 119000 LL trucks were assembled in Soviet factories .

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”