the turning point?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
bruce
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 May 2002 21:20
Location: Montreal, Canada

the turning point?

Post by bruce » 07 Nov 2002 22:51

hi there
what was the turning point in barbarossa?
was it the battle of stalingrad or the battle of kursk?
or some other event?

thank u

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 07 Nov 2002 23:25

barbarossa was limited to 1941 fighting. as such the turning point was battle of Smolensk

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14010
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 08 Nov 2002 00:18

As for the eastern front in general, Stalingrad was the definitive turning point (there have been other decisions leading to this, but this was the most important), and Kursk was the loos of the last chance the Third Reich had to come out alive...

Christian

User avatar
Heinz Stohl
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 18:40
Location: Hamburg, New York

Post by Heinz Stohl » 08 Nov 2002 00:22

Ya stalingrade was one of the big turning points and then Kursk. you can also take into consideration that the russians had better mass production of equipment by then and more man power.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 00:31

..and more man power
common misconception

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14010
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 08 Nov 2002 00:33

So, you are saying there were no more soldiers in the Soviet army, than in the Axis?

Christian

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 00:39

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:So, you are saying there were no more soldiers in the Soviet army, than in the Axis?

Christian
I am saying that human reosrcs prior to mid 1943 were about equal –utilizing them were totally different matter though

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14010
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 08 Nov 2002 00:47

Hmmm... I guess I've tripped on that one too, at some point.

Mansteins counter-offensive at Dneiper musthave given a lot of POW's, but of course the attacker is weaker than the defender, if having equal numbers, so the Soviets had the advantage still...

Christian

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 01:21

I actually was referring to the fact that on the Soviet territory occupied by Axis prior to war was inhabited by about 75 million people. Some of course were evacuated but most were not. Considering that pre-war Soviet population was about 180 million ( form the memory) that would live us with about 105 million people. It seemed to me that Reich plus axis plus unwilling recruitment pool of occupied countries could very well match it.

User avatar
JC
Member
Posts: 1326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 14:18
Location: USA

Post by JC » 08 Nov 2002 02:05

IMHO The turning point of Barbarossa, and the entire eastern front for that matter, was the German failure to capture Moscow. The exact cause of that failure is certainly debatable...... but that was surely the turning point. After that, the Germans had no chance to prevent the Soviet build up that eventually lead to their defeat.

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 08 Nov 2002 02:44

Easy...
Hitler's decision to move Guderian's panzergruppe 800km to the south to kiev to be the outer jaws of an encirclement there and Hoth's panzergruppe to the north to Leningrad. They had moscow in mid august, but hitler sent the slow infantry to take the town, while the tanks were busy elsewhere. When they resumed their attack on Moscow, it was the end of September. DEspite a brilliant manuver by Guderian away from Kiev and to Moscow, time had given the Soviets the chance to built up thier forces, including siberian troops and Defensive lines around moscow. The T-34 had more time to come into production, same with the KV-1, both superior tanks. The factories had been moved to the Urals, and production was commencing. Winter was setting in. Had Hitler taken moscow earlier, in August or at the least early September, he would have won. He would have drove on to the Ural factories and destoryed them. Tankograd which produced tens of thousnads of tanks, would not have been able to support the red army. THAT WAS THE TURING POINT!

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 02:56

General Patton wrote:Easy...
Hitler's decision to move Guderian's panzergruppe 800km to the south to kiev to be the outer jaws of an encirclement there and Hoth's panzergruppe to the north to Leningrad. They had moscow in mid august, but hitler sent the slow infantry to take the town, while the tanks were busy elsewhere. When they resumed their attack on Moscow, it was the end of September. DEspite a brilliant manuver by Guderian away from Kiev and to Moscow, time had given the Soviets the chance to built up thier forces, including siberian troops and Defensive lines around moscow. The T-34 had more time to come into production, same with the KV-1, both superior tanks. The factories had been moved to the Urals, and production was commencing. Winter was setting in. Had Hitler taken moscow earlier, in August or at the least early September, he would have won. He would have drove on to the Ural factories and destoryed them. Tankograd which produced tens of thousnads of tanks, would not have been able to support the red army. THAT WAS THE TURING POINT!

dude where did you get all these? The reason that they went to Kiev were becouse they were in no condition to go to Moscow , after Smolensk. T-34 was comming in... yea... http://www.shortway.to/1941/ewfram.htm
Last edited by Oleg Grigoryev on 08 Nov 2002 03:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 02:58


User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 08 Nov 2002 03:34

Hitler wanted to capture men at kiev, and he did. Why would he march his men 800km if they were to rest after smolensk. Becuase you are in love with the t34, smolensk is big for you. But it still was agerman victory. Hitler wanted to fight the body, not take off the head like guderian wanted

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 21:05

General Patton wrote:Hitler wanted to capture men at kiev, and he did. Why would he march his men 800km if they were to rest after smolensk. Becuase you are in love with the t34, smolensk is big for you. But it still was agerman victory. Hitler wanted to fight the body, not take off the head like guderian wanted
Attack towards Moscow in August most likely would end in German catastrophe on Stalingrad scale. AG if attacking would be going into the battle without any reserves, with exposed flanks, open rear, and with only limited logistic possibilities (only through damaged Minsk-Smolensk-Viazma-Moscow railroad or by motor transport and horses). Form the north this logistic line would be exposed to the attack by the Soviet North-Western Front (roughly half million soldiers several hundred tanks) ; from the South from the area of Konotop, Briansk, it would be exposed to the attack by Brainsk Front and South-Western Front – more than 1000000 million soldiers and 1000 tanks and about 5000 guns. German supply columns would be decimated and Guderian’s tank would stop, far short of Moscow for the simple lack of gas and spare parts. (the funny thing is they actually would attack Moscow in august and lost, I am sure that German Generals would be writing in their memories “we told him to go to Kiev!!!”)

Even Germans understand that they did not have much choice actually. Entry in Halder’s diary from august 7th of 1941: “The answer to the question “what should we capture Moscow or Ukraine?” we should answer Moscow and Ukraine. We must do it, otherwise we would not be able to finish enemy off before the autumn settles in.” But even this is not the most interesting thing. In the middle of the august the fuel reserves of the German army fell far short of quantities needed for the prolonged operations such as advance on Soviet capital. Once again Halter’s diary August 17th 1941 “the seriousness of the fuel situation is widely acknowledged… we can satisfy only the most needed request. Further conduct of any operations which that requires significant amount of fuels is not possible. Advance to Moscow is a big operation, so is the capture of Moscow (these are two different operations). Germans barely managed to accumulate enough fuel for short spurt of two tank groups towards Lohvica , to provide for the entire German army was beyond their possibilities.
Actually problems with fuel arose earlier than August 17th. Halder on August the 4th: “ The fuel situation does not allow us the usage of motorized units for the offensive in the Southern direction.. We need 14 days to refit and reequip our tank units”. The gas was not of course the only problem: August 11 “the high command is extremely short of resources we used up our last reserves” . Conference of German high command in Borisov (headquarters of AG Center)” Guderian reports that he needs to compensate for losses among personnel. If we can supply him with new engines the battle readiness of his units will come up to about 70%, in case of being supplied with spare parts only he will be able to proceed only with limited objectives. Hott underlines that unless new engines are delivered only limited objectives operations are possible.”

Even before that – July 30th “ We have to go on defensive in the central sector of front.. Line Ilmen-Holm-Toropec should be cover with small units only. Tank units should be removed form the front for rest and refitting “ … advance on Moscow gimme a break.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”