Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#316

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2015, 07:56

BDV wrote:
ljadw wrote:The ammunition consumption in may/june 1940 was lower than expected,resulting in considerable reserves,which means that there was no need for big increases for the ammunition production for Barbarossa which wa scheduled to be won in less than 10 weeks,and in the summer of 1941,there were NO ammunition shortages on the eastern front :alles was going well,except for the little derail that the SU had not the grace to succomb.
Reserves explain why it was enough (given the fast and light approach to Ostfront) not that more was not needed.

Between BoB, Blitz, the uptick in the Battle of Atlantic, Barbarossa preparation, execution, and derailment, the need to arm the other Axis nations, building stockpiles for the Atlantikwall, Maritza, Afrikakorps, etc.etc.etc. there were plenty of reasons ammo production SHOULD have increased from 1940 and 1941. The fact it could not, would go a long way in explaining the German reluctance of getting into a slugfest with the Russians, relying instead on the "deep armored strikes" so poorly fit to the realities of the Soviet battlefield. And would also point why an even sooner attack in the East was preferable.
If it was enough,this means that more was not needed. :wink:

Explain the plenty of reasons ammo production should have increased

Prove the fact that it could not

Besides,more ammo production does not mean that more ammo would be available on the front

ML-fin
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#317

Post by ML-fin » 09 Mar 2015, 15:28

What you mean with that hoax? Sure russians needed to have troops there in case of japanese attack. If Japan attacked Russia instead of Pearl Harbor, i think they could have had some possibility of success. Their navy and airforce were much stronger than russians, only land forces were inferior. And can you tell me the name who gave all those operation plans to swiss intelligence? I bet its many times better for someone to stay anonymous than shout IT WAS ME.


ML-fin
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#318

Post by ML-fin » 09 Mar 2015, 15:45

"One can't put any trust in the meteorological forecasts" Hitler told Martin Bormann and others during table-talk at Berchtesgaden in 1941 after weather was changing in Russia.

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#319

Post by BDV » 09 Mar 2015, 17:02

ljadw wrote:If it was enough,this means that more was not needed.
For the battle that was fought.

Different planning would see different consumption. But if it was impossible to provide for different consumption it would explain why the battle was fought how it was fought (inexcusably so after July 1941, if alternatives are available).
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: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#320

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2015, 21:02

ML-fin wrote:What you mean with that hoax? Sure russians needed to have troops there in case of japanese attack. If Japan attacked Russia instead of Pearl Harbor, i think they could have had some possibility of success. Their navy and airforce were much stronger than russians, only land forces were inferior. And can you tell me the name who gave all those operation plans to swiss intelligence? I bet its many times better for someone to stay anonymous than shout IT WAS ME.

How do YOU know that someone gave the plans to the swiss and that the swiss transmitted them to Moscow?

A Japanese attack on the SU would result in failure: this has been discussed and proved on this forum .

The same for the role of the Siberian divisions in the battle of Moscow : only 3 or 4 were participating on this battle .

ML-fin
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#321

Post by ML-fin » 09 Mar 2015, 21:25

Also japanese attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in failure, they were no match to US. Japan could have easily taken coastal part of Russia with their navys back up and that time Russia needed every tank against Germany.

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#322

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2015, 21:42

ML-fin wrote:


Japan could have easily taken coastal part of Russia with their navys back up and that time Russia needed every tank against Germany.

Proof ?

Do you have informations about the strength of the Japanese forces in this theatre that are justifying your claim ?

The strength of the Soviet Far eastren Front was 23 divisions,500000 men ,3201 tanks,and 4100 combat aircraft . :wink:

Afaics,the Japanese were inferior in all aspects : tanks,aircraft,manpower .

Besides, what happened in august 1939 was proing that Japan had no chance against the SU .

ML-fin
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#323

Post by ML-fin » 09 Mar 2015, 22:54

Well we all know russian airplanes were nothing but crap, even americans were having troubles with Zeros. You said japanese were inferior in all aspects, somehow you forgot navy ;)

ML-fin
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#324

Post by ML-fin » 09 Mar 2015, 23:03

Amazing that you dont know anything about that swiss spy organisation which made almost all german war efforts useless. I will go library tomorrow and search something nice to you. I have one question : Are you from Russia :) ?

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#325

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2015, 23:22

I have forgotten much more about the Lucie spy ring (which mostly is an invention) than you ever will know ,and I can imagine what you will find about Lucie : the usual Paul Carrell crap .

And,no,I am not from Russia .

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#326

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2015, 23:24

ML-fin wrote:Well we all know russian airplanes were nothing but crap,

even americans were having troubles with Zeros. You said japanese were inferior in all aspects, somehow you forgot navy ;)
1)We all know ? A pluralis majestatis :P

2)Why should the Japanese navy have any importance in a war between Japan and the SU ? :roll:

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#327

Post by steverodgers801 » 10 Mar 2015, 04:37

ML the sturmovic was one of the best ground attack planes of the war. I guess you think the war lasted about 4 months since you obviously haven't heard about the battle of Midway.

ML-fin
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 10:05
Location: Finland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#328

Post by ML-fin » 10 Mar 2015, 09:39

Yes i know the type: it was very rugged, impossible to fly and very hard to aim on anything. German tank crews were thinking its best to stay where you are and you are safe. And what a big deal about Midway? If i remember right America lost one aircraft carrier without armor protection there. And Mr Ijadw, i think you know what battleships could do to fortifications in Normandy, as example. And if Murmansk (easy capture after Leningrad taken) and Vladivostok were taken so where to get all that equipment from USA to Russia? Via Persian gulf? Would take ages i think. And those numbers you gave to Soviet far east front, army of that size couldnt even win against Finland, and i think Japan was a little different caliber.

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#329

Post by ljadw » 11 Mar 2015, 21:47

Murmansk esay capture after Leningrad was taken ? Why ? Do you have a source for your claim ?

The distance between both cities was 1018 km ,how long do you think would the Germans need to go from StPetersburg to Murmansk?

And what would be the benefit of the capture of Murmansk ? Do you know how many % of LL was going via Murmansk ?

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#330

Post by BDV » 11 Mar 2015, 23:20

ML-fin wrote:Would take ages i think. And those numbers you gave to Soviet far east front, army of that size couldnt even win against Finland, and I think Japan was a little different caliber.
In terms of land power, not that much different from Finland, unless IJA allows the front in China to collapse.

And if Murmansk (easy capture after Leningrad taken)
Of course depends what "easy" means. Would the Finns be moved to increase their effort? Why? If one expects the Russian troops to fight with less intensity, one is sorely mistaken. This thinking pattern/error seems to pervade German thought about war (maybe I'll make a separate discussion about it).

Of course, to the extent that German/Axis success means degradation in physical capacity of Soviet Russia to prosecute the war, that use of "easy" is correct.
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

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”