How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#211

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Sep 2016, 21:15

stg 44 wrote: Were it not for the Channel do you really think the British army would stop the German army in 1940?
Perfect example of the blinkered mindset. The UK had a Navy, an Air Force and a land Army. 3 legs. The Army leg was damaged but the other two legs were able to outfight and scare away any German Invasion. The Germans did not decide to give up because of the Channel. They gave up because their Air Force was soundly beaten when trying to achieve air superiority and because the German Navy realised that if they tried to cross the RN would simply crush them. It was the prospect of a humiliating defeat that made them turn east. The Germans simply were not strong enough to overcome the UK (3 legged)Army.

Lesson: If you start a war with an island nation make sure you have a powerful Navy.
stg 44 wrote: Sure, the RAF stopped the Luftwaffe, because the Luftwaffe had a (insert laundry list of pathetic reasons why the better side threw away victory and on no account allow for any possibility they were outfought).......................... whine...................whine......................whine......................
stg 44 wrote: That's what happens when a dictator .........(insert variation of 'its all Hitlers fault' and quote excuse making German General's memoir where he explains how he could have won the war in 3 months)..........................................
stg 44 wrote: So a guy that wrote about the Canadian army is your example? A force that made up less than.......(insert special excuse that negates any argument that says Germany could be beatable in a fair fight......................................
stg 44 wrote: BTW your example from 1944-45 you cited from the Platoon memoir is hardly representative of German or British armed forces for the entire war, as it was the peak of British competence in terms of ground operations as well as relative strength against the Germans, while on the German side that was after 5 years of horrible bloodletting, the vast majority on the Eastern Front, and after the losses of Operation Bagration where and entire German army group was shattered by far more Soviet troops. By late 1944 the German army was on it's last legs and using old men and boys to fight.
Then show us how the magnificent 'at its peak' German Army smashed through the Dunkirk perimeter and captured the 400,000 troops 'trapped' there.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#212

Post by Graeme Sydney » 19 Sep 2016, 01:37

stg 44 wrote: You're quoting a short literary opinion. How about read it and then comment?
Whats the count for book on WW2 - 20,000 or is it 60,000? Even the most scholarly have not read them all. Even the most scholarly have to prioritize (and I would never be considered scholarly :oops: .) Which is the purpose of a book review.

I read the review and it describes a premise which I'm familiar with and comes to a conclusion I'm familiar with. Although I'm sure I could enjoy the read and probably glean new info and new insight but given the indicated conclusion I prioritize not to read the book.


User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#213

Post by stg 44 » 19 Sep 2016, 02:05

Graeme Sydney wrote:
stg 44 wrote: You're quoting a short literary opinion. How about read it and then comment?
Whats the count for book on WW2 - 20,000 or is it 60,000? Even the most scholarly have not read them all. Even the most scholarly have to prioritize (and I would never be considered scholarly :oops: .) Which is the purpose of a book review.

I read the review and it describes a premise which I'm familiar with and comes to a conclusion I'm familiar with. Although I'm sure I could enjoy the read and probably glean new info and new insight but given the indicated conclusion I prioritize not to read the book.
So because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you won't even expose yourself to the argument. Gotcha.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#214

Post by Graeme Sydney » 19 Sep 2016, 02:32

stg 44 wrote:

So because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you won't even expose yourself to the argument. Gotcha.
Don't be such an arrogant prig. I said I had read on the subject and he wasn't apparently offering anything new.
Last edited by Graeme Sydney on 19 Sep 2016, 02:34, edited 2 times in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#215

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Sep 2016, 02:32

stg 44 wrote: So because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you won't even expose yourself to the argument. Gotcha.
If I pick up a Kurowski book I know I am going to read about honorable soldiers mowing down 'red hordes'. If I pick up Keegan, Hastings or Ellis I am going to read about super-soldiers only losing to sheer numbers. After a while you tend to get a 'feel' for certain authors and their hobby horses. Now I have read a number of the Hastings type books and I know all the facts being used. I can use the very same facts to 'prove' the German Army was the worst performing in WW2. I never let myself become one of those deluded people who read 'the book' and then become an instant expert who can end every dispute with a curt 'read Keegan'. If you want to be Keegan's disciple then do a bit of scanning so the rest of us can see where we have all missed the obvious.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#216

Post by stg 44 » 19 Sep 2016, 02:59

Graeme Sydney wrote:
stg 44 wrote:

So because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you won't even expose yourself to the argument. Gotcha.
Don't be such an arrogant prig. I said I had read on the subject and he wasn't apparently offering anything new.
The only one being arrogant here is you, specifically because you're judging a book on a few lines and outright saying you won't read it because you disagree with the premise and don't want to read the data backing up the argument.
Michael Kenny wrote:
stg 44 wrote: So because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you won't even expose yourself to the argument. Gotcha.
If I pick up a Kurowski book I know I am going to read about honorable soldiers mowing down 'red hordes'. If I pick up Keegan, Hastings or Ellis I am going to read about super-soldiers only losing to sheer numbers. After a while you tend to get a 'feel' for certain authors and their hobby horses. Now I have read a number of the Hastings type books and I know all the facts being used. I can use the very same facts to 'prove' the German Army was the worst performing in WW2. I never let myself become one of those deluded people who read 'the book' and then become an instant expert who can end every dispute with a curt 'read Keegan'. If you want to be Keegan's disciple then do a bit of scanning so the rest of us can see where we have all missed the obvious.
Ellis has the numbers and data to back up his positions. He's not complimentary of the Axis forces, just acknowledges that they made less mistakes early on before they started going off the rails, while the Allies generally failed to shower themselves in glory in most instances.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#217

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Sep 2016, 03:10

stg 44 wrote: Ellis has the numbers and data to back up his positions.
As I have the data to back mine.

By the way does he have the data to explain why the 'at its peak' German Army could not break into the Dunkirk pocket and prevent 330,000 soldiers 'living to fight another day'?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#218

Post by stg 44 » 19 Sep 2016, 04:16

Michael Kenny wrote:
stg 44 wrote: Ellis has the numbers and data to back up his positions.
As I have the data to back mine.

By the way does he have the data to explain why the 'at its peak' German Army could not break into the Dunkirk pocket and prevent 330,000 soldiers 'living to fight another day'?
After the Halt Order the Dunkirk Perimeter was set up. He mainly focuses on the period after 1940, but the reason as I understand it is the terrain, weather, and proximity of air bases in Britain enabled the British to hold out for a while until the Belgians surrendered and started the collapse of the pocket, especially as more and more British combatants were siphoned off. The German Panzer divisions were at the end of their supply lines and worn down from weeks of fighting and little rest, while the Luftwaffe was mostly kept away due to the weather, while the terrain and rains made the ground a defenders paradise. British forces contracted into the perimeter, which concentrated their fighting strength, while the Germans were still fighting the French and trying to tighten up the entire pocket of nearly 2 million Allied soldiers encircled north of the Somme; it wasn't just the 3-400k Brits at Dunkirk, but also the more than 1.4 million French soldiers in the broader Franco-Belgian pocket, as well as Belgian troops. Plus the French were attacking from the rest of France south of the Somme to relieve the pocket north of the river that the Germans were contracting, so they had to diver their attention south as well, plus had to finish sweeping up the Netherlands and Belgium. There was a LOT more than just Dunkirk going on at the time and FAR more than just the BEF fighting the Germans.

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

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#219

Post by BDV » 19 Sep 2016, 15:38

stg 44 wrote: while the Luftwaffe was mostly kept away due to the weather,
Allegedly Luftwaffe lost 240 planes over the Dunkirk pocket.
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

Shermaninterest
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Jun 2015, 19:23
Location: Germany

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#220

Post by Shermaninterest » 19 Sep 2016, 17:11

After reading Terry Copp I am pretty sure he is mostly an Apologetic for the Canadian Army in ww2 his opinions seem delusional to me.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#221

Post by stg 44 » 19 Sep 2016, 17:45

BDV wrote:
stg 44 wrote: while the Luftwaffe was mostly kept away due to the weather,
Allegedly Luftwaffe lost 240 planes over the Dunkirk pocket.
And? I said mostly kept away, not entirely. And of course with Britain being closer than German air bases Spitfire sweeps helped keep the Luftwaffe off the back of the invasion.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#222

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Sep 2016, 18:46

Shermaninterest wrote:After reading Terry Copp I am pretty sure he is mostly an Apologetic for the Canadian Army in ww2 his opinions seem delusional to me.
They only delusion is that the standard for measuring military effectiveness is set by what Germany would do in the same situation and anything that does not conform is a form of 'cheating'.
Have you any specific 'delusion' in mind so we can see the extent of Copp's handicap?
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 19 Sep 2016, 18:51, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#223

Post by doogal » 19 Sep 2016, 18:47

BDV wrote:
stg 44 wrote:
while the Luftwaffe was mostly kept away due to the weather,


Allegedly Luftwaffe lost 240 planes over the Dunkirk pocket.
Maybe this is a stupid question. But If the weather was that bad that it kept the Luftwaffe mostly away from the Dunkirk area and British Fighter cover was so effective due to the proximity of her bases, why would any high command (let alone the all conquering high command of Germany in 1940) make such a god awful decision to rely on the Luftwaffe in an attempt to reduce/attack/frustrate/interdict/ Operation Dynamo and the forces defending the Dunkirk area.
After the Halt Order the Dunkirk Perimeter was set up. He mainly focuses on the period after 1940, but the reason as I understand it is the terrain, weather, and proximity of air bases in Britain enabled the British to hold out for a while until the Belgians surrendered and started the collapse of the pocket, especially as more and more British combatants were siphoned off. The German Panzer divisions were at the end of their supply lines and worn down from weeks of fighting and little rest, while the Luftwaffe was mostly kept away due to the weather, while the terrain and rains made the ground a defenders paradise. British forces contracted into the perimeter, which concentrated their fighting strength, while the Germans were still fighting the French and trying to tighten up the entire pocket of nearly 2 million Allied soldiers encircled north of the Somme; it wasn't just the 3-400k Brits at Dunkirk, but also the more than 1.4 million French soldiers in the broader Franco-Belgian pocket, as well as Belgian troops. Plus the French were attacking from the rest of France south of the Somme to relieve the pocket north of the river that the Germans were contracting, so they had to diver their attention south as well, plus had to finish sweeping up the Netherlands and Belgium. There was a LOT more than just Dunkirk going on at the time and FAR more than just the BEF fighting the Germans.
While there was definitely "a lot more going on than Dunkirk" German priorities should have been focused on capturing or destroying the BEF, from a strategic POV you have to question the notions of the German high command. I know stg44 you will blame Hitler but there are instances where his mind could be changed if he was shown the relevance of a point.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#224

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Sep 2016, 18:50

doogal wrote:
Maybe this is a stupid question. But If the weather was that bad that it kept the Luftwaffe mostly away from the Dunkirk area.................

............why did the same weather not keep the RAF away?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#225

Post by stg 44 » 19 Sep 2016, 20:01

Michael Kenny wrote:
doogal wrote:
Maybe this is a stupid question. But If the weather was that bad that it kept the Luftwaffe mostly away from the Dunkirk area.................

............why did the same weather not keep the RAF away?
On the flying weather days both the RAF and Luftwaffe were active, otherwise both were grounded or involved in areas with better weather.
doogal wrote: Maybe this is a stupid question. But If the weather was that bad that it kept the Luftwaffe mostly away from the Dunkirk area and British Fighter cover was so effective due to the proximity of her bases, why would any high command (let alone the all conquering high command of Germany in 1940) make such a god awful decision to rely on the Luftwaffe in an attempt to reduce/attack/frustrate/interdict/ Operation Dynamo and the forces defending the Dunkirk area.
Because the Halt Order was decided first and then Goering jumped in and said the Luftwaffe could do the job; he wanted to impress Hitler to obtain more power for himself and Hitler was too nervous to risk attacking more, so they agreed. Meteorology was a lot less advanced in WW2 than it is now, so they had no idea what the weather was going to be during the resumed pocket battle, not that it would have mattered to the diliatant Goering.
doogal wrote: While there was definitely "a lot more going on than Dunkirk" German priorities should have been focused on capturing or destroying the BEF, from a strategic POV you have to question the notions of the German high command. I know stg44 you will blame Hitler but there are instances where his mind could be changed if he was shown the relevance of a point.
In retrospect sure, but at the time other considerations were at play, like making sure the much larger French army was dealt with, the French attack to break into the pocket and cut off the Sickelschnitt were dealt with, and France was able to be beaten in the next phase of the invasion, Case Red. Hitler didn't really emotionally accept the level of victory won yet and assumed that Britain would make peace once France was defeated, so erred in assuming that France was the center of gravity of the Allies. Hitler wasn't entirely to blame, Rundstedt originated the Halt Order, Hitler just confirmed it. Some of the older generals were on Hitler's side, but Guderian and Halder were mortified. They got Hitler to rescind the order days later, but the damage was already done. Sure, Hitler wasn't as obstinent as he would become later, but still made mistakes and was the core problem when it came to declaring war on everyone and creating a mess of a governmental system.

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”