Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
mezsat2
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 13:02

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#436

Post by mezsat2 » 13 May 2016, 10:20

ljadw wrote:And how would they have done this ?
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the satellite forces committed to Fall Blau fell under the overall command of OKW. They were not simply marching east with their own set of objectives.

It's certainly an interesting scenario to consider as these forces were completely incapable of resisting an armored thrust such as the Red Army unleashed in Nov.-Dec. 1942. On the other hand, they were probably just as well equipped as anyone else at throwing grenades and firing submachine guns in the twisted wreckage of Stalingrad. They may have flourished in a situation where they had a fighting chance.

As it was, many T-34 commanders reported there was not even the need to waste ammunition firing at them- they simply ran over them in the open since they possessed very few anti-tank weapons and even fewer tanks.

Sixth Army, on the other hand, may have been able to hold the flanks. Who knows, maybe the satellite armies in the city could have slugged it out in the city until Hitler's promised reinforcements arrived in the spring.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#437

Post by ljadw » 13 May 2016, 11:56

I don't see Italians, Romanians and Hungarians fight ing together in Stalingrad, I even don't see them arriving at Stalingrad .


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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#438

Post by BDV » 17 May 2016, 16:55

ljadw wrote:I don't see Italians, Romanians and Hungarians fighting together in Stalingrad, I even don't see them arriving at Stalingrad .
Romanian 4th Army marched to South of Stalingrad. The only trouble was that after Sevastopol (and the previous bleedings of Pruth/Dniester forcing, Odessa, Sevastopol I, Kerch-Feodosyia defensive, Bustard Hunt, Sevastopol II) they were not in capacity to fight another bloody engagement. Maybe not, maybe yes.

Maybe a "Verloren Sieg"? :roll:
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

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#439

Post by steverodgers801 » 17 May 2016, 19:02

The Germans didn't trust their allies for heavy fighting, which is why they were used to guard the deep flanks. A little known fact is that the Germans actually were doing good holding the immediate flanks of 6th army against counter attacks, which helped lead to the lack of concern over the build up on their flanks.

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#440

Post by BDV » 17 May 2016, 19:43

steverodgers801 wrote:The Germans didn't trust their allies for heavy fighting, which is why they were used to guard the deep flanks. A little known fact is that the Germans actually were doing good holding the immediate flanks of 6th army against counter attacks, which helped lead to the lack of concern over the build up on their flanks.
Actually they did; and the performance of the Auxilliary troops explains the great success of AGS compared to the other two fronts. It's just that German officers were a tad too liberal with other folk's blood, leading to considerable thinning of the Auxilliary ranks (both Romanian and Hungarian armor lost ~50% of pre-war strength in 1941).

The Auxilliaries had (by 1942) wizened up to the shtick; somewhat incompletely, unfortunately. I'm guessing that the success of pre-Bustard Hunt defense suggested that Wehrmacht knew what they were doing; unfortunately Operatsiya Uran and Operatsiya Malyi Saturn demonstrated the contrary.
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

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#441

Post by steverodgers801 » 21 May 2016, 20:00

using them for cannon fodder is not the same as relying on them for critical operations

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#442

Post by ljadw » 21 May 2016, 22:10

BDV wrote: (both Romanian and Hungarian armor lost ~50% of pre-war strength in 1941)
This is meaningless : the pré-war strength is irrelevant during the war and the losses of 1941 are irrelevant for what happened in the autumn of 1942;

The Soviets lost almost their total pré-war strength iin 1941, but this had no influence of the success of Uranus .

The germans lost in the east during 1941 almost their total pré-war strength, but this was irrelevant for the failure of Blau .

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#443

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 May 2016, 22:52

Partly irrelevant, its true that where they were used is still critical, if there were more panzers available, there may have been a chance to help guard the flanks

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#444

Post by Appleknocker27 » 24 May 2016, 16:22

ljadw wrote:
BDV wrote: (both Romanian and Hungarian armor lost ~50% of pre-war strength in 1941)
This is meaningless : the pré-war strength is irrelevant during the war and the losses of 1941 are irrelevant for what happened in the autumn of 1942;

The Soviets lost almost their total pré-war strength iin 1941, but this had no influence of the success of Uranus .

The germans lost in the east during 1941 almost their total pré-war strength, but this was irrelevant for the failure of Blau .
What??? Pre-war strength combat losses represent a qualitative decline in personnel and difficult to replace equipment, which has a direct effect on combat effectiveness. Your brand of logic continues to defy conventional wisdom... German Infantry losses from Barbarossa had a direct effect on Blau's failure.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#445

Post by ljadw » 24 May 2016, 17:07

No : you are wrong because you are unable to read correctly .

The US lost almost their total pre war manpower during the war, but this did not prevent the US to win the war . It was the same for Britain .

German infantry losses from Barbarossa are not the same as the loss of the German prewar strength .Germany lost 800000 men in Barbarossa which was the equivalent of their pre war strength, but only a small number of them belonged to the prewar WM .

It is the same for the number of tanks that Hungary and Romania lost in 1941 ,as no one can tell hw many of these tanks belonged to the prewar forces .

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#446

Post by doogal » 24 May 2016, 20:50

Appleknocker wrote - Pre-war strength combat losses represent a qualitative decline in personnel and difficult to replace equipment, which has a direct effect on combat effectiveness
i think it is pertinent to say that from 1939-June 1941 - The losses incurred by the Heer numerically and qualitatively did not incur a decline in personnel or performance. (although the Luftwaffe suffered in this way following the Battle of Britain)
Once you reach 1941 and beyond then i think Appleknocker is quite correct... But declining quality of personnel and training is due to more than just the pre-war strength of any army being equalled then overtaken by the losses it incurs. But simply put you use the best first and a large number die quickly... the longer a conflict goes the more causalties you incur and it becomes inevitable that quality suffers.(depending on how many losses you incur, and the size of your manpool)

If your army and its operations are based on the quality of combat soldiers (the combat arm being a small percentage) it will always have an effect.
i firmly believe that for Germany heavy casualites combined with the loss of its better trained soldiers over time led to a shortening of training and simplification of its methods, leading to its combat arm becoming less effective
Ljadw wrote -(!)The US lost almost their total pre war manpower during the war, but this did not prevent the US to win the war . It was the same for Britain .

(2)German infantry losses from Barbarossa are not the same as the loss of the German prewar strength .Germany lost 800000 men in Barbarossa which was the equivalent of their pre war strength, but only a small number of them belonged to the prewar WM .
(!) The US losing its pre-war manpower is totally different in its effect than from when it happened to Germany. (this is where overall losses become important)
(2) Some of the losses in Barbarossa would have been from the pre-war Heer........ who had fought through 1939-1941

None of it is irrelevent ... That the Soviet union could lose its whole pre-war strength but mount sucessfull operations in late 1942 only points to the available pool of manpower introduced after 1941.... And the structure of soviet training and its profligate use of its manpower...

If you base your methodology around simple training for all then you can survive with your combat arm having less quality.
And there are so many other factors which mediate these ideas that it is very hard to draw sufficient comparisons between different armies.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#447

Post by ljadw » 24 May 2016, 22:26

You forget that no one of the pré war Heer had any combat experience in september 1939,thus that in june 1941 it was not so that Müller who was drafted in september 1937 was better than Schmidt who was drafted in september1940.

Other point : are there any proofs that the German army and its operations were based on the quality of combat soldiers ?

It is also not so that less losses during Barbarossa would have given more and better men for Blau .

An exemple : it is not so that without the Verdun losses,Germany would have more men available for the 1918 spring offensives .

It is also not so that if the Soviets had lost 1 million men less in 1941,they would have 1 million men more in 1942 and that this would have an influence on Blau .

Reality is that the success of Blau did not depend on more Germans and that more Soviets would not have resulted in Uranus starting a month earlier .

In the OTL Blau failed in les than 3 weeks,more Germans would result in more Soviets (unless one starts from the phantasy that the German losses could decrease and the Soviet losses remaining stable ),thus the outcome remains identical :success or failure for the Germans depended only on the Soviets .Not on what the Germans would/could /should do .

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

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#448

Post by Appleknocker27 » 25 May 2016, 17:14

ljadw wrote:No : you are wrong because you are unable to read correctly .

The US lost almost their total pre war manpower during the war, but this did not prevent the US to win the war . It was the same for Britain .

German infantry losses from Barbarossa are not the same as the loss of the German prewar strength .Germany lost 800000 men in Barbarossa which was the equivalent of their pre war strength, but only a small number of them belonged to the prewar WM .

It is the same for the number of tanks that Hungary and Romania lost in 1941 ,as no one can tell hw many of these tanks belonged to the prewar forces .
Should I read what you write like a child's coloring book? Where is the analysis or depth of understanding?

German Infantry losses of experienced men degraded their tactical effectiveness in the field due to a lack of experience. Training an Infantry Soldier takes time, seasoning takes time, experience takes time. When the amount of time invested cannot be made up in the form of new replacements and not enough of them, combat capability is degraded. When your enemy is able to make good his losses due to a larger manpower pool, the force/strength ratio shifts in the enemy's favor. Thats why a loss of pre-war strength IS RELEVANT as it pertains to this topic. Your simpleton logic devoid of any analysis whatsoever lends nothing to this conversation...
Hungarian and Romanian armored forces were almost impossible for them to rebuild at the rate at which they were expended, therefore losses of pre-war strength is relevant. Loss of pre-war strength to be replaced by new replacement troops or is a negative qualitative exchange at best and at worst there is no replacement at all. This is called analysis for the sake of meaningful conversation, please try it.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#449

Post by ljadw » 25 May 2016, 20:09

Pre-war strength does not mean experienced men ,unless you can prove that the men who were lost at Corregidor/Bataan had more experience that those who fought and won at Guadalcanal,Iwo Jima and Okinawa .

Combat experience can only be learnt in combat = during war .

Besides the success/failure of Blau did NOT depend on the availability of more ,not experienced, but non experienced Germans .

Between 1939 and 1941 the WM increased from 1 million to 7.2 million men,this means that of the 3 million men of the Ostheer only 14 % belonged to the pre-war army= some 400000.Thus your theory that everything depended on the pre-war strength is wrong .The 1 million préwar force had no combat experience.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15586
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#450

Post by ljadw » 25 May 2016, 20:23

I can't understand that a professional soldier can write the following (or maybe the reason is the contempt for reservists and recruits ) :

"Loss of pré-war strength to be replaced by new replacement troops or is a negative qualitative exchange at best and at worst there is no replacement at all"


The truth is that Britain,the US and the SU won the war by calling up new replacement troops who where qualitatively as good as the pre-war units .

The SU lost in 1941 the majority of its pre-war forces ,replaced them by reservists and recruits and arrived at Berlin .

The pre-war British army was lost in 1914, was replaced by volunteers and recruits and,maybe Appleknocker has forgotten, but Britain won .

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”