Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013, 19:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#796

Post by Stugbit » 12 Dec 2014, 21:51

I totally agree with you, BDV.

And I don't know if the Sturmovik was really inspired in the Stuka. I think it was a independent project despite the two aircraft having some similarities. Anyway, in terms of ground attack the proposals they had were different.

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#797

Post by steverodgers801 » 12 Dec 2014, 22:02

Completely different plane types, the Sturmovik a close support plane and not a dive bomber


User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013, 19:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#798

Post by Stugbit » 13 Dec 2014, 16:12

steverodgers801 wrote:Completely different plane types, the Sturmovik a close support plane and not a dive bomber
And what do you think about Stuka's Performance during the war steverodgers?

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#799

Post by steverodgers801 » 13 Dec 2014, 20:33

It was good as long as there were no fighters to oppose it. Any fighters rendered it useless

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#800

Post by Alixanther » 13 Dec 2014, 22:39

Stugbit wrote:
steverodgers801 wrote:Completely different plane types, the Sturmovik a close support plane and not a dive bomber
And what do you think about Stuka's Performance during the war steverodgers?
Don't you dare feel encouraged, it was you who first compared these two airplanes. ^^ I personally said apples to oranges.

What now? You're going to declare JU-87 useless in spite of numerous medal awards for their pilots destroying ground targets?
All right, but have in mind that it was the Stuka which received improvements during the war, not the Henschel. That's quite an indication of which airplane was perceived as being more useful in the future. I'm not going to wage a "percentages war" as ljawd, though :)
steverodgers801 wrote:It was good as long as there were no fighters to oppose it. Any fighters rendered it useless
I said the same thing, word by word. Thanks for quoting me. :))

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013, 19:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#801

Post by Stugbit » 14 Dec 2014, 20:21

My point was more about Stukas destroying tanks.

From sources I got here, it's stated that the early versions of the Stuka were not efficient against Russian tanks, and that's why they put two 37mm guns under the wings. Bombs aren't the best weapon for that purpose. The guns and rockets with shape charges were.

Anyway, Alixanther, if you're trying to sustain that there were no tank combats in the Eastern front, you're quite mistaken. The historic development of each tank is a prove against it. Along the months the tanks were receiving several upgrades like bigger guns to face the thick armor they were facing, as well as more armor to stand against the bigger guns. Just look at the difference between the Panzer III versions ausf. H, J and L and you will see the upgrades.

That logic can't explain why a Tiger tank arrived in October 42. The Germans weren't putting a 100mm thick armor and a 88mm gun in a tank just randomly. There was a reason for that fact. The reason was the fact the Tiger was a response for the T-34 and Kv tanks.

I personally don't believe that the Stuka could hold the Eastern Front until late 43.

But in the beginning of Barbarossa is actually true to say that there were very few tank combats.

First because, as I already said, a huge amount of Russians tanks were not in combat conditions before the war.
another thing is the fact that after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the border changes, Stalin advanced his front line defense into the new territory established then and abstained from having a defense in depth.

Anyway, why would the Germans waste a Panzer III against a BT/T-26 tank if it could be easily taken out with a 37mm gun carried by hand? The PAK 36 could take care of a BT from 1km away. The Panzers III were doing a much important job: conquering enemy territory and preventing the enemy to organize himself.

Do you know what a PAK 36 is? If you have a big house you can decorate your living room with it :lol: Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Pak_36

The high quality of German combined arms armored armored formations and infantry divisions during this era vs. the Soviet (brigades, regiments, battalions) small armor units without very little organic support generally negated the quantity and quality of the soviet equipment.

Surely, if the Germans used armor as good or better than the T-34, they would have had more success. But this is really subjective. Their main advantage was in the organization that held the armor, the panzer division..
Their tanks aspects also reflected that organization. I have doubts if the German could have a better performance if they had the Soviet material back then. And also if we consider the conditions the Russians had their equipment.

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#802

Post by steverodgers801 » 15 Dec 2014, 02:28

Regarding the Stuka, as I stated if there were no fighters around it was a good support plane.

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#803

Post by BDV » 15 Dec 2014, 18:31

Alixanther wrote:
All right, but have in mind that it was the Stuka which received improvements during the war, not the Henschel. That's quite an indication of which airplane was perceived as being more useful in the future. I'm not going to wage a "percentages war" as ljawd, though :)

Well, obviously. However, illustrates quite nicely the severe limitations to the Wehrmacht's ability for self-awareness, where their most effective and actual true CAS weapon is a biplane deployed in most puny numbers.
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

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#804

Post by Alixanther » 16 Dec 2014, 15:43

Stugbit wrote: My point was more about Stukas destroying tanks.
I really don't know where do you want this discussion to turn at. Stukas destroyed tanks, ok? They had a major impact on enemy front whenever they either had aircover or the enemy had no planes to oppose them. Check the medals received by JU-87 pilots, maybe this way you'll get the facts straight.
Stugbit wrote:From sources I got here, it's stated that the early versions of the Stuka were not efficient against Russian tanks
They were efficient enough against the initial main bulk of 30k light tanks of the Soviet military. After the Soviets upgraded their armored hardware it was kinda logic that JU-87 would receive its upgrades too, in order to stay competitive.
Stugbit wrote: Bombs aren't the best weapon for that purpose. The guns and rockets with shape charges were.
You're moving goalposts again. This is in line with your previous naive assertion that "they were vulnerable". This kind of assertions are quite ridiculous. ALL weapons on earth are vulnerable on some extent or another. ALL weapons are obsolete at some point so NONE is best since they're constantly evolving. As regarding shape charges maybe I should remind there were none in military use at the beginning of the war, as they were still experimenting with.
Stugbit wrote: Anyway, Alixanther, if you're trying to sustain that there were no tank combats in the Eastern front, you're quite mistaken
This is quite an enormity and I dare you to quote me on this matter. When in hell did I say such a thing? I only said that German tanks were quite unsuitable for tank vs tank warfare against the Soviets. In special circumstances on the Eastern Blitz they performed quite well, however you should remember they almost always had air cover and support. If left alone they performed poorly: had they been suited for combat against Soviet armor, Typhoon offensive might have had a different outcome than the historical one.
Stugbit wrote: The historic development of each tank is a prove against it. Along the months the tanks were receiving several upgrades like bigger guns to face the thick armor they were facing, as well as more armor to stand against the bigger guns. Just look at the difference between the Panzer III versions ausf. H, J and L and you will see the upgrades.
That logic can't explain why a Tiger tank arrived in October 42. The Germans weren't putting a 100mm thick armor and a 88mm gun in a tank just randomly. There was a reason for that fact. The reason was the fact the Tiger was a response for the T-34 and Kv tanks.
Actually this is an argument in my favour. The Germans had 1 main battle tank (PzIII, different variants) and 1 support tank (PzIV, different variants). Both were ineffective against the Soviet armor, even after receiving several upgrades. As I said, keeping in the air a plane with AT role required a hefty quantity of oil, which wasn't Germany's strong point. That's why they constanty tried to make their armored units combat capable (which they thought they were although in the combined arms doctrine they're not supposed to work alone) and dissolve the dependency on JU-87 and other support aircraft. However during the '41 Blitz it wasn't the case to pretend that even their most "armored" and "modern" PzIII variants were able to meet toe-to-toe their Soviet counterparts. If you take into account the disparity in numbers (3k German tanks against 30k Soviet tanks) this becomes even more ludicrous a task. Please stop pretending that 3k German tanks destroyed the 30k Soviet ones. They were busy advancing and pocketing. Rinse and repeat.
Stugbit wrote:I personally don't believe that the Stuka could hold the Eastern Front until late 43
Hell, no, they couldn't do it alone. In combination with artillery, AT pieces and infantry, they had they bit of action, tough. And when is a AT-role plane supposed to "hold"? They were mainly used in offensive thrusts rather than defensive operations: during the Prokhorovka entanglement, their support was nil because they could not pick enemy targets from friendly ones (they were too close to one another).
Stugbit wrote: First because, as I already said, a huge amount of Russians tanks were not in combat conditions before the war.
Oh, come on, this thing again? Each time the Russians try to explain how they lost 30k tanks against 3k tanks they pretend they were "not in combat conditions". Let me say this: whenever German sources put up their number, does it comprise the tanks not in combat conditions? If yes, then the argument is moot (Germans also have tanks not in combat condition). If not, then why pretend that those tanks were not serviceable? Which army in this world counts the non-serviceable tanks too? I tell you, none. The disparity of numbers is that great that only combined arms warfare could be the real answer to it. This and the Soviet panic, abandoning the war materiel.
Stugbit wrote: Anyway, why would the Germans waste a Panzer III against a BT/T-26 tank if it could be easily taken out with a 37mm gun carried by hand? The PAK 36 could take care of a BT from 1km away. The Panzers III were doing a much important job: conquering enemy territory and preventing the enemy to organize himself.
That's what I said they were doing.
Stugbit wrote: I have doubts if the German could have a better performance if they had the Soviet material back then. And also if we consider the conditions the Russians had their equipment
If by performance you refer to tactics and plans then no. If however you understand results, then I could definitely say that 30k tanks would have made Germany practically invincible, no matter how shitty the tanks were.

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#805

Post by BDV » 16 Dec 2014, 22:56

Alixanther wrote:If however you understand results, then I could definitely say that 30k tanks would have made Germany practically invincible, no matter how shitty the tanks were.
No, not really. How was Germany gonna field all them tanks?
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

Erwinn
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 17 Dec 2014, 10:53
Location: Istanbul

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#806

Post by Erwinn » 17 Dec 2014, 14:40

What is more flawed?

- Hitler involving in planning.
- Hitler snucking his nose to everything.
- Germans sidelined the population, wherever they go. Instead of making plans to starve them, they could have recruited Ukrainians for example for war effort. Country had a 30 million population in 1941, at least a million men would be willingly join if they wanted it. How to use it, it's their call. Free up veteran German division and put them on guard duties...
- Alienating local population caused partisans to grow more and more, causing supply problems everywhere.
- DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#807

Post by Alixanther » 21 Dec 2014, 15:01

BDV wrote:
Alixanther wrote:If however you understand results, then I could definitely say that 30k tanks would have made Germany practically invincible, no matter how shitty the tanks were.
No, not really. How was Germany gonna field all them tanks?
Well, they don't really need to field them all at once. :) Just being all there means they could switch production to different tasks (self propelled artillery, assault guns, halftracks, tank hunters, trucks, armored railroad wagons, freight wagons, rails, locomotives, some aircraft frames, etc.) Having them all supplied and refueled would have worked wonders, since they could have used most of them as stockpiles for active duty ones.

In spite of the 70+ years mantra that the Germans were prepared for the war and they caught their enemies in their underpants, the reality is quite the opposite: they were NOT prepared for war. The Heer had a measly 100k troops and officers before Hitler took office. Armaments situation was the same. Germany had to build up arms and munitions stocks from zero after WW1, as all previous stocks were blown up by the Allies under WW1 armistice terms.

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#808

Post by BDV » 22 Dec 2014, 17:21

Alixanther wrote:Well, they don't really need to field them all at once. :) Just being all there means they could switch production to different tasks (self propelled artillery, assault guns, halftracks, tank hunters, trucks, armored railroad wagons, freight wagons, rails, locomotives, some aircraft frames, etc.) Having them all supplied and refueled would have worked wonders, since they could have used most of them as stockpiles for active duty ones.
Yeah, but this is ASBs (unless you're arguing for extra war-making potential resulting from saner policies regarding human and agricultural and industrial resources).

In spite of the 70+ years mantra that the Germans were prepared for the war and they caught their enemies in their underpants, the reality is quite the opposite: they were NOT prepared for war. The Heer had a measly 100k troops and officers before Hitler took office. Armaments situation was the same. Germany had to build up arms and munitions stocks from zero after WW1, as all previous stocks were blown up by the Allies under WW1 armistice terms.
Well, they did steal the march on rearmament, and caught their opponents pants down (and then proceeded to dillydally - that's another issue). The takeover of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia gave Germany critical boosts to their warmaking potential. The French were in the process of fielding the D520 and S35, and British the Spitfire and the Matilda II which would have been (were for the British) able opponents to the German weapons of war, when the Hitlerite horde came crashing into Flanders and Champagne.
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

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#809

Post by Alixanther » 23 Dec 2014, 02:58

BDV wrote:

Well, they did steal the march on rearmament, and caught their opponents pants down (and then proceeded to dillydally - that's another issue). The takeover of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia gave Germany critical boosts to their warmaking potential. The French were in the process of fielding the D520 and S35, and British the Spitfire and the Matilda II which would have been (were for the British) able opponents to the German weapons of war, when the Hitlerite horde came crashing into Flanders and Champagne.

Well if by catching their opponents pants down you mean Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and Norway, then you're right. However these countries were never supposed to have a standing army capable of keeping the Wehrmacht at bay (as the Finns did with the Soviets).

Poland fate was in fact sealed by the Soviet attack from the rear. It's precisely then when Poland fell. So not even Poland could stand on the list of "countries caught pants down". Which leaves us only one pretender: France.

France, however, saw this conflict as an unnecessary one. After losing hefty millions in WW1, France saw no need to waste their young against Germany, just because Britain geopolitical interests dictated so. You may not consider so, but I think the French politicians underwent a good decision. Maybe not the best possible - that might have been attacking while Wehrmacht was entangled in Poland, but that's a what if scenario. Who knows what would have happened.

As about "hitlerite hordes", it seems the young French ladies would have disagreed with you: they found their company quite agreeable. Joking aside, I consider that Hitler proposed France a most decent offer, leaving them all their colonial Empire and temporarily denying military assets and access to a significant portion of their home territory. Occupied France was never incorporated into the Reich (except Alsace-Lorraine which were disputed since 1870) and obviously would have been returned to France at the end of the war. If you compare to what happened to Germany after WW1, Hitler's response is polite. (this politeness might have been dictated by special interests of keeping France out of the conflict but it's nevertheless politeness)

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

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#810

Post by ljadw » 24 Dec 2014, 15:11

Erwinn wrote:. Country had a 30 million population in 1941, at least a million men would be willingly join if they wanted it. How to use it, it's their call. Free up veteran German division and put them on guard duties...
-

Proof that one million Ukrainians were willing to join the WM ?

I am sure that you will give the sources proving that Germany had weapons and supplies for these men . :P

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”