German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by doogal » 05 Nov 2015 22:39

appleknocker wrote: Those victories in 1941 led directly to over extension and catastrophic losses that had a huge negative effect overall on Wehrmacht combat capability in 1942 and beyond


Most forces committed became over extended due to the tempo and length of operations continual combat losses and the optimistic planning when assigning achievable operational goals. There was also a lack of material support from supply to industrial capacity and the lack of vision to plan for substantial losses over extended periods of heavy combat.
The decision to mount a front wide offensive and accepting high casualties without considering the duration over which these would occur led directly to catastrophic casualties. The early successes come from the decision to mount a front wide offensive, these concepts are so interlinked you cannot deal with one, (the early victories) without (the decision to attack)
Appleknocker wrote:Those losses due to over extension include qualitative losses that could never be recouped in the strategic dynamic that developed after 1941, therefore an argument can indeed be made for the OP (IMHO).
The losses in men and material without doubt effected German Strategy in 1942 but these were a result of months of defending against Soviet operations.

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 631
Joined: 05 Jun 2007 17:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by Appleknocker27 » 06 Nov 2015 14:53

I think we're on the same page, I simply chose brevity and not the holistic explanation.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by steverodgers801 » 06 Nov 2015 19:30

The cause was based on the understanding Germany could not fight a long term war so there fore the war would be short.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by doogal » 06 Nov 2015 21:55

Defeat in the east was a consequence of
the understanding Germany could not fight a long term war so there fore the war would be short
Germany did fight a protracted conflict and was engaged on multiple fronts. If there was a belief prior to 1939 that Germany could not fight a long war it was disproved. Defeat was not solely a consequence of the misplaced reliance on short sharp conflicts. It was a factor definitely,
and without doubt there was a reliance in the east on the optimistic notion that the Soviet Union could be defeated quickly but this was one part of the many miscalculations failures and miss-readings of the German High command....

magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 23:50

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by magicdragon » 24 Nov 2015 01:14

In a way you are right. The only option in late 1941 was establish defensive lines in the East and hunker down. Where the Germans dug in near Lenningrad they inflicted kill ratios on the Soviets which would have meant that they would have been in far better shape in spring 1942 to recommence offensive operations - they did not take this course of action because they still thought they could secure decisive victory in late 1941 - and they also knew math never worked for a long-term war in the East.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by stg 44 » 24 Nov 2015 23:11

magicdragon wrote:In a way you are right. The only option in late 1941 was establish defensive lines in the East and hunker down. Where the Germans dug in near Lenningrad they inflicted kill ratios on the Soviets which would have meant that they would have been in far better shape in spring 1942 to recommence offensive operations - they did not take this course of action because they still thought they could secure decisive victory in late 1941 - and they also knew math never worked for a long-term war in the East.
The optimal time would have been to dig in after Vyazma/Bryansk after sinching the pockets tight, rather than Guderian going after Tula and letting units slip out. After that sitting tight for the winter would have been ideal and pretty tough on the Soviets, while leaving the Axis forces in a much better way. Of course this also means no Tikhvin or Rostov operation.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by steverodgers801 » 24 Nov 2015 23:32

Defensive posture did not help the Germans because they could not cover the whole front. The reason of the invasion was to acquire the resources Germany needed.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by doogal » 24 Nov 2015 23:40

Defeat was a consequence of attempting operations " beyond their culminating point". Typhoon should never have been attempted and along with it Vyazma/Bryansk.
Barbarossa was over effectively after Army group south failed to take Leningrad and army grouo center fought of the soviet yelna offensive in mid September. Hitler then altered operational direction and placed the weight of the forces back to the armies original target of Moscow, a decision most still gladly agreed with. Quite simply continuing offensive operations at this stage was a serious miscalculation and this decision led to a serious defeat in 1941. It also weakened the Heer limiting the forces available for the next year.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by steverodgers801 » 24 Nov 2015 23:46

IT was the German army planners who foresaw that there would need to be a turn north and south to cover the flanks of AGC. The whole premise of Barbarossa was flawed in the belief that the Soviets army had no reserves beyond the frontier and would not be capable of raising more armies to prevent a German victory. The Germans knew they could not sustain operations beyond the summer of 1941. It was only Soviets mistakes and losses that enable the Germans to last so long

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2015 00:10

doogal wrote:Defeat was a consequence of attempting operations " beyond their culminating point". Typhoon should never have been attempted and along with it Vyazma/Bryansk.
Vyazma/Bryansk wiped out over 1 million men (PoWs and killed) and a lot of equipment from the Soviet OOB with minor German losses, it was pretty crucial before winter to neuter Soviet winter offensive power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... nd_Bryansk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_en ... Barbarossa
15 Vyazma-Bryansk PoWs:663,000 1,242 tanks 5,412 guns
steverodgers801 wrote:Defensive posture did not help the Germans because they could not cover the whole front. The reason of the invasion was to acquire the resources Germany needed.
Not really that much of a problem over the winter if they weaken the Soviets badly enough and anchor defenses on a few lines.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by doogal » 25 Nov 2015 08:36

stg44 wrote -
Vyazma/Bryansk wiped out over 1 million men (PoWs and killed) and a lot of equipment from the Soviet OOB with minor German losses, it was pretty crucial before winter to neuter Soviet winter offensive power.
And it achieved ?? these operations were time consuming and drew weight from the direct thrust on Moscow, slowing the Wehrmacht which did not reach the Mozhaisk line until 13th October. The losses may be huge on the soviet side but they could absorb them.

I understand the point about Soviet offensive power, but they were still able to mount offensives along the length of the front into the new year following the defensive success outside Moscow. Many of these may have been abortive as the German units regained combat power and cohesion following the dec/jan withdrawals but it shows as with the other encirclements that dead soldiers and wrecked machinery does not simply win you a war on its own.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2015 14:46

doogal wrote:
stg44 wrote -
Vyazma/Bryansk wiped out over 1 million men (PoWs and killed) and a lot of equipment from the Soviet OOB with minor German losses, it was pretty crucial before winter to neuter Soviet winter offensive power.
And it achieved ?? these operations were time consuming and drew weight from the direct thrust on Moscow, slowing the Wehrmacht which did not reach the Mozhaisk line until 13th October. The losses may be huge on the soviet side but they could absorb them.

I understand the point about Soviet offensive power, but they were still able to mount offensives along the length of the front into the new year following the defensive success outside Moscow. Many of these may have been abortive as the German units regained combat power and cohesion following the dec/jan withdrawals but it shows as with the other encirclements that dead soldiers and wrecked machinery does not simply win you a war on its own.
What are you talking about? Those operations were on the path to Moscow, by eliminating most of the defenders they cleared the path to Moscow by wiping those forces out; it was a prerequisite to being able to advance on Moscow to conduct those pockets. You cannot simply bypass 1 million men and leave them in your rear areas while you advance on Moscow, especially if you plan on having supplies ever reach the front.

The success of the Soviet winter offensives was with mostly infantry formations hastily raised thrown against badly overextended and ill-supplied formations without a coherent front line. Had say the Germans done the Vyazma-Bryansk pockets, digested those and then picked viable winter lines and settled down by mid-October the Soviets would have been unable to attack until December when they had mobilized enough forces to do so and then hit well prepared lines with far better supply and winter clothing with forces unable to handle dug in positions in winter weather.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by doogal » 25 Nov 2015 16:08

Apologies I was still referring to the attempt to take Leningrad and the Soviet yelna offensive, as the end of Barbarossa...
Not Vyazma/Briansk

(my bad I quoted incorrectly)

Typhoon though was launched to late in the year and victories such as V/B compounded this.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by doogal » 27 Nov 2015 21:37

I would agree that success in the early June through July fighting convinced Hitler to issue Directive 33 for the continuation of the war in the east, and that the German Armies response to this directive was slow and at times ponderous albeit AGC was beginning to get heavily involved at Smolensk at that point. Without doubt this contributed to the late attempt to launch Typhoon.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German defeat in the East consequence of victories 1941-42?

Post by ljadw » 28 Nov 2015 11:42

What victories in 1941/1942 ? There were only tactical victories which only delayed the German defeat .

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”