Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 12139
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 17 Aug 2018 13:20

benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 12:23
ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 10:03
benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 07:57
ljadw wrote:
16 Aug 2018 20:52
benwi wrote:
16 Aug 2018 17:51


You clearly have no clue. Once breakthrough is achieved mobile forces move as fast as they can drive which is obviously a lot slower when you are stuck in mud and your fuel does not come through.Obviously mobile divisions do not wait for the infantry divisions .
Waiting a month does not make you relatively stronger as your opponent will get stronger too.In additon to that, there was no real pause as many of the mobile units were involved in operations to the north and south which causes losses and wear and tear on vehicles.
Hitler did not decide on a pause .He was simply more interested in other objectives.The supposedly impossibility of advancing on Moscow in august is a postwar invention .
Prove it .
In August,the Soviets were that strong that they were attacking and the Germans lost 200000 men, the highest figure til Stalingrad .To have a point, you must prove that Typhoon in August would be more successful than Taifun in October .
You do not make the situation better by waiting a month.The ratio of forces will not develop in your favour.Add the weather factor and you are much worse off.And not gloing for Moscou in august had nothing with Hitler thinking that it was not possible.All that is postwar invention.
The postwar inventions were created by Halder and the aims of Halder were
1 to deny the involvement of the WM in the Holocaust
2 to blame Hitler for the defeat
3 to convince people that if he had listened to the army chief of staff (Halder :P ) Germany would have won the war .
The postwar invention was : Auschwitz? The bad Hitler. Stalingrad : the stupid Hitler . :P
Ridiculous.What was proposed by the OKH in august 1941 and what Hitler decided and why is well documented.Hitler did not decide on a pause.
Listening to Halder in 1941 and 1942 would have worked better for Germany.
The same Halder who supported Fall Blau, but after the war lied that he always opposed it .

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 17 Aug 2018 13:45

ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:18
To take Moscow was not needed for the success of Taifun .And ,as for Barbarossa, for Fall Blau, .. the success of Taifun depended on what the Soviets would do : if the Soviets retreated east of Moscow,refusing the battle of Bryansk/Vyazma or if they locked themselves up in Moscow, Taifun had no chance to succeed .
You are still evasive about the fact that Taifun without mud has mobile forces moving much faster and deeper and achieving much more.

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 17 Aug 2018 13:59

ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:20
benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 12:23
ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 10:03
benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 07:57
ljadw wrote:
16 Aug 2018 20:52

Prove it .
In August,the Soviets were that strong that they were attacking and the Germans lost 200000 men, the highest figure til Stalingrad .To have a point, you must prove that Typhoon in August would be more successful than Taifun in October .
You do not make the situation better by waiting a month.The ratio of forces will not develop in your favour.Add the weather factor and you are much worse off.And not gloing for Moscou in august had nothing with Hitler thinking that it was not possible.All that is postwar invention.
The postwar inventions were created by Halder and the aims of Halder were
1 to deny the involvement of the WM in the Holocaust
2 to blame Hitler for the defeat
3 to convince people that if he had listened to the army chief of staff (Halder :P ) Germany would have won the war .
The postwar invention was : Auschwitz? The bad Hitler. Stalingrad : the stupid Hitler . :P
Ridiculous.What was proposed by the OKH in august 1941 and what Hitler decided and why is well documented.Hitler did not decide on a pause.
Listening to Halder in 1941 and 1942 would have worked better for Germany.
The same Halder who supported Fall Blau, but after the war lied that he always opposed it .
His judgment was better than Hitlers in 1941 and 1942.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12139
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 17 Aug 2018 16:00

benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:45
ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:18
To take Moscow was not needed for the success of Taifun .And ,as for Barbarossa, for Fall Blau, .. the success of Taifun depended on what the Soviets would do : if the Soviets retreated east of Moscow,refusing the battle of Bryansk/Vyazma or if they locked themselves up in Moscow, Taifun had no chance to succeed .
You are still evasive about the fact that Taifun without mud has mobile forces moving much faster and deeper and achieving much more.
That's not a fact, but a claim .
The Germans failed in the summer, thus you can't use the autumn as a scape-goat for the failure of Taifun .

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 17 Aug 2018 17:27

ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 16:00
benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:45
ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:18
To take Moscow was not needed for the success of Taifun .And ,as for Barbarossa, for Fall Blau, .. the success of Taifun depended on what the Soviets would do : if the Soviets retreated east of Moscow,refusing the battle of Bryansk/Vyazma or if they locked themselves up in Moscow, Taifun had no chance to succeed .
You are still evasive about the fact that Taifun without mud has mobile forces moving much faster and deeper and achieving much more.
That's not a fact, but a claim .
The Germans failed in the summer, thus you can't use the autumn as a scape-goat for the failure of Taifun .
Fact because of the abscence of mud and a better starting position.Results will inevitably be better than in october.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12139
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 17 Aug 2018 18:28

NO : weather did not determine the outcome .Force relation did it .And mobile forces moving faster and deeper (which would be very stupid)will not achieve more .If Taifun succeeded, there was no reason for mobile forces to move faster and deeper, if Taifun failed, mobile forces could not move .

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 17 Aug 2018 19:05

ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 18:28
NO : weather did not determine the outcome .Force relation did it .And mobile forces moving faster and deeper (which would be very stupid)will not achieve more .If Taifun succeeded, there was no reason for mobile forces to move faster and deeper, if Taifun failed, mobile forces could not move .
The outcome is better when mobile forces can be used to their full potential in better weather.You clearly have no clue about the basics of mobile warfare.It is about breakthriough and deep exploitation.

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 3006
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Kelvin » 19 Aug 2018 16:47

benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:45
ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:18
To take Moscow was not needed for the success of Taifun .And ,as for Barbarossa, for Fall Blau, .. the success of Taifun depended on what the Soviets would do : if the Soviets retreated east of Moscow,refusing the battle of Bryansk/Vyazma or if they locked themselves up in Moscow, Taifun had no chance to succeed .
You are still evasive about the fact that Taifun without mud has mobile forces moving much faster and deeper and achieving much more.
But even German fought early in May 1941 and launched Operation Taifun early, but the capture of Moscow cannot win the war because the German was incapable of annhilating all Soviet military manpower and industrial production capability.

Ural area still turned out a thousand of guns and rifles to frontline. In Nov 1941, Soviet had set up another ten fresh Armies ( 1st Shock, 10th, 26th, 39th, 56th, 57th, 58th, 59th, 60th and 61st Armies) behind Moscow and Leiningrad plus several veteran divisions from Far East, including tank divisions.

The problem for German failure was she neither repeat the rapid progress of campaign nor did annhilate enemy force in a very short period of time. In initial period of war, June -July 1941, Only successful encirclement of Minsk-Bialystok resulted in around 300,000 Soviet POW.

Regarding much stronger Soviet Southwestern Front, she did not win a huge encirclement battles against Soviet troop, albeit destroyed its armoured resources. Uman was until Aug 1941 and very huge battle at Kiev was completed only after 100 days campaign. Southern Front was dealt a big blow only in October 1941 in battle of Azov.In Northern sector , were also disappointment to German performance as they failed to destroy Soviet Northern and Northwestern Fronts too.

Back to previous German victories, French First Army Group was annhilated in first 24 days in Fall Gelb. BEF was driven out of Europe and a commitant surrender of both Belgian and Dutch troops. Another five divsions of Anglo-French troops were captured at St Valery-en-Caux after first 32 days campaign and French Second Army Group with 500,000 men was cut off from supply by June 20 1940 ( after 40 days campaign) and was about to surrender soon. Army Group three was mauled too. French military power no longer existed after 40 days battle

For Polish campaign, half of Polish Prusy Army was encircled and annhilated at Radom after 11 days campaign and after 20 days campaign, Poznan and Pomerian Armies of 8 divisions were destroyed at Kutno. And Krakow Army was captured too by Sept 20 ( after first 20 days campaign too). The remant of Polish force were encircled at Warsaw and Modlin. The mainstay of Polish troop was finished

But German neither destroyed the mainstay of Soviet Southwestern , Southern, Northern and Northwestern Fronts in first 40 days campaign. And this give time to Soviet to build and transfer fresh troop to front. Newly built 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, and 28th Armies were mobilized in rear MD and rushed to front. 15 NKVD divisions were mobilied and help built 29th ,30th, 31st and 34th Armies. Moscow Militia divisions were mobiled to build two new Armies. German HG Mitte even failed to close the encirclement of three Soviet Armies at Smolensk area in July 1941, which enable to give time for Soviet to build more troop. From this way, German performane was below standard in first 40 days battle. Battle of Vizama, Kiev, Uman and Azov are too late for German as Soviet military manpower were mobilized. Speed and Annhilation in short time are of vital importance in this war like Polish and Western campaign.

German partner, Japan, in early Aug 1941, had estimated that Soviet-German war was not won by the end of 1941 as no signicant victories , apart from Minsk-Bialystok pocket, happed before August 1941.
Last edited by Kelvin on 19 Aug 2018 16:59, edited 1 time in total.

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 19 Aug 2018 16:56

Kelvin wrote:
19 Aug 2018 16:47
benwi wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:45
ljadw wrote:
17 Aug 2018 13:18
To take Moscow was not needed for the success of Taifun .And ,as for Barbarossa, for Fall Blau, .. the success of Taifun depended on what the Soviets would do : if the Soviets retreated east of Moscow,refusing the battle of Bryansk/Vyazma or if they locked themselves up in Moscow, Taifun had no chance to succeed .
You are still evasive about the fact that Taifun without mud has mobile forces moving much faster and deeper and achieving much more.
But even German fought early in May 1941 and launched Operation Taifun early, but the capture of Moscow cannot win the war because the German was incapable of annhilating all Soviet military manpower and industrial production capability.

Ural area still turned out a thousand of guns and rifles to frontline. In Nov 1941, Soviet had set up another ten fresh Armies ( 1st Shock, 10th, 26th, 39th, 56th, 57th, 58th, 59th, 60th and 61st Armies) behind Moscow and Leiningrad plus several veteran divisions from Far East, including tank divisions.

T
With an earlier Taifun you will achieve better results which does put the USSR in a much worse position. .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12139
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2018 18:02

What better results ?
Barbarossa failed in the summer, thus why should Taifun have any chance,especially when it was launched hundreds of kms farther to the east ?

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 19 Aug 2018 19:55

ljadw wrote:
19 Aug 2018 18:02
What better results ?
Barbarossa failed in the summer, thus why should Taifun have any chance,especially when it was launched hundreds of kms farther to the east ?
You have no clue. A Taifun in september will inevitably be more successfull than in october.Simply a matter of more mobility.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 6305
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Art » 19 Aug 2018 21:47

BTW that's what Heinz Guderian wrote about better mobility in September 1941 (from "Panzer Leader":
3 September
...At evening a strong rain started which soon made roads impassable, two thirds of SS "Das Reich" division which was still on the march, got stuck on their way.
4 September
...I spent 4.5 hours for a 75 km trip, in so poor conditions roads were after a short rain.
6 September
.. Due to poor condition of roads the division [Das Reich] was not yet fully concentrated...On my way back I met troops of the 1 Cavalry Division, which due to poor state of roads advanced on foot.
9 September
...It was needed to develop success achieved by the division [3 Panzer] but given a lack of forces, poor road conditions and most importantly our stretched south-east flank which was 240 km long, that was a difficult task.
10 September
.. The road was getting worse and worse due to rain, many bogged down vehicles were standing along it. Columns got stretched strongly. Tractors of artillery units had to tow trucks behind them.
11 September
The rain was pouring all night long, so a return trip on 11 September was a difficult one. First motorcycles went out of commission. Then my excellent command vehicles bogged down. Bogged down vehicles were extricated by my command tank and a tractor provided by an artillery unit. Moving on a road covered with dirt at 10 km/h I reached Gireyevka...
At 18.30 I was back at my command point. On 10 September I made 165 km in 10 hours, on 11 September - 130 km in 10.5 hours. Poor state of roads didn't allow to travel with higher speed. These long trips gave me a graphic idea of troubles were were going to encounter later. Only the one who traveled himself on these boggy and dirty roads to forward positions could feel the strain experienced by troops and vehicles and could correctly appraise the situation on the front and made adequate conclusions.
...
Staff of the Army Group informed us on the evening that due to poor state of roads 1st Panzergruppe of generaloberst Kleist was unable to achieve its objective. The one who knew the state of roads described above would not be surprised with such a report.
12 September
...2 Army due to poor condition of roads was slowly moving to Nezhin.
14 September
... With onset of darkness I was at Model's in Lokhvitsy. By that moment he only got there with one regiment of his division [3 Panzer], other units due to bad state of roads were far behind.
etc etc. Somehow weather and poor roads were not a problem in September but suddenly became a problem in October.

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 3006
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Kelvin » 20 Aug 2018 05:52

benwi wrote:
19 Aug 2018 19:55
ljadw wrote:
19 Aug 2018 18:02
What better results ?
Barbarossa failed in the summer, thus why should Taifun have any chance,especially when it was launched hundreds of kms farther to the east ?
You have no clue. A Taifun in september will inevitably be more successfull than in october.Simply a matter of more mobility.
The forces destroyed in Vizama should be annhilated in July 1941 when Soviet reserves 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th , 27th and 28th Armies rushed to the front but German failed to done their job. And this job is finally done at Vizama. Ljadw has mentioned before Soviet military manpower is huge, if German cannot finish existing all Soviet forces, they will face division by division from Soviet reserves. Ok, let say Vizama happened in September but Pz Group 2 was in Kiev, if Pz Group 2 not presented in Vizama in September 1941, German Pz Group 3 and 4 's flank would be threatened by Briansk Front.

The circumstances for successful Taifun should be eliminatin of Soviet threat from Southwestern Front. Do you remember that ? Viazam perhaps not a easy job in September when Southwestern Front threat to German flank. And even Vizama successful in Sept, another ten Armies which I mentioned in previous post is about to depoly near Moscow and Leningrad area. So how the war ended at the end of 1941 ? It is main problem for German. All these Uman, Kiev, Vizama and Azov should be occured earlier, It is German performance problem as they underestimated Soviet landscape, transportation problem in Russia and Soviet fierce resistance which enabled Soviet to mobilize huge reserves to prolong the war.

benwi
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 19:50
Location: belgium

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by benwi » 20 Aug 2018 10:06

Kelvin wrote:
20 Aug 2018 05:52
benwi wrote:
19 Aug 2018 19:55
ljadw wrote:
19 Aug 2018 18:02
What better results ?
Barbarossa failed in the summer, thus why should Taifun have any chance,especially when it was launched hundreds of kms farther to the east ?
You have no clue. A Taifun in september will inevitably be more successfull than in october.Simply a matter of more mobility.
The forces destroyed in Vizama should be annhilated in July 1941 when Soviet reserves 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th , 27th and 28th Armies rushed to the front but German failed to done their job. And this job is finally done at Vizama. Ljadw has mentioned before Soviet military manpower is huge, if German cannot finish existing all Soviet forces, they will face division by division from Soviet reserves. Ok, let say Vizama happened in September but Pz Group 2 was in Kiev, if Pz Group 2 not presented in Vizama in September 1941, German Pz Group 3 and 4 's flank would be threatened by Briansk Front.

The circumstances for successful Taifun should be eliminatin of Soviet threat from Southwestern Front. Do you remember that ? Viazam perhaps not a easy job in September when Southwestern Front threat to German flank. And even Vizama successful in Sept, another ten Armies which I mentioned in previous post is about to depoly near Moscow and Leningrad area. So how the war ended at the end of 1941 ? It is main problem for German. All these Uman, Kiev, Vizama and Azov should be occured earlier, It is German performance problem as they underestimated Soviet landscape, transportation problem in Russia and Soviet fierce resistance which enabled Soviet to mobilize huge reserves to prolong the war.
If you have Taiful happen in september Panzer Group 2 will be in a better position as the operation to the south does not happen.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12139
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 20 Aug 2018 11:28

No : PzGr 2 was not stronger in September than in October .Besides, the role of PzGr 2 in Taifun was subordinated to the role of the ID , and, as usual, you are neglecting intentionally the role of the Red Army .
Due to logistic problems, Taifun in September was excluded : it would fail, totally .

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”