The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3660
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by BDV » 16 Jan 2017 03:42

Nickdfresh wrote:
What's your contention? You're the one with the problem apparently. Go ahead, what are the numbers? What are you claiming is incorrect?
You have stated that Luftwaffe "butchered" by "area bombing" more people than their opponents. What is the exact meaning of your statement (what theater, what type of action, what timeframe, what persons considered as victims - only civilians or all comers?)

Do you have any numbers to support your contention?

If you have a problem with something I said, then by all means correct it...
There is no need to correct something IF it is correct. That's why you need to clarify what is your exact contention. You were the one to open the subject on this thread.
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

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Nickdfresh » 16 Jan 2017 04:21

BDV wrote:
You have stated that Luftwaffe "butchered" by "area bombing" more people than their opponents. What is the exact meaning of your statement
The meaning is that the Luftwaffe killed more people by bombing in WWII than the United States and Britain did (talking about the ETO only)...
(what theater, what type of action, what timeframe, what persons considered as victims - only civilians or all comers?)
All theaters, the entire war from the Polish Campaign on, and any persons killed by bombing were "victims" .

What's the point?
Do you have any numbers to support your contention?
Yes, roughly and off the top of my head. Do you?


There is no need to correct something IF it is correct. That's why you need to clarify what is your exact contention. You were the one to open the subject on this thread.
Oh, so you're full of shit...

If you disagree with what I said, then prove it! You can't, so your going to nitpick. If you have a point to make, then just get to it!.

If you disagree with my statement, then disprove it.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3660
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by BDV » 16 Jan 2017 16:18

Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
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

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Nickdfresh » 16 Jan 2017 17:12

BDV wrote:
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Nickdfresh wrote:Oh, so you're full of shit...
Right!

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Yuri » 16 Jan 2017 20:26

Guys, offering to drink a glass of vodka and eating caviar, it calms, proven reliable. Fee for me.

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Nickdfresh » 17 Jan 2017 20:05

Yuri wrote:Guys, offering to drink a glass of vodka and eating caviar, it calms, proven reliable. Fee for me.
Good point! Cheers!

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Yuri » 18 Jan 2017 17:31

Hi!
It would be very interesting to see how varied the evaluation of the significance of the Eastern front political and military leaders and staffs of great Britain and the USA separately at different stages of the war from 22 June 1941 until April 1945.
Have any impact on the plans of the allies changing the situation on the Eastern front?
I have very few of such documents and in translation into Russian language and also the text is not complete.
There are no comprehensive modern study of this topic?
Thank.

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Nickdfresh » 19 Jan 2017 20:23

Off the top of my head, yes. The U.S. Army chiefs lobbied for a rapid invasion of France and had a plan called "Sledgehammer" for a quick seizure of a port to form a beachhead and gradually push out into a redoubt in order to take pressure off the Red Army. The British essentially lobbied against this and pushed the Mediterranean strategy and an Invasion of North Africa first, that would become Torch, and then the invasion of Italy after the conclusion of North Africa whereas the US wanted to launch Sledgehammer, especially if the Eastern Front further destabilized with many more successive defeats suffered by the Red Army. But the front stabilized after the Battle of Moscow and then Stalingrad and the British arguments were better prepared and were more sound as the relative small numbers of trained divisions and the ever present problem with shipping pretty much scrapped any direct invasion of France before 1943. They probably wouldn't have done much to reduce the pressure on the Red Army in the East and may have dissipated what power the Western Allies had.

I have nothing comprehensive, just secondary overveiws but you can start with looking for speculations on Operations Sledgehammer and Roundup...

Erwinn
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 17 Dec 2014 09:53
Location: Istanbul

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Erwinn » 25 Jan 2017 09:23

In the end Operation Torch did more than needed. Hitler with his delusional mind, sent a lot of troops to Tunisia to simply lose them 5 months later. The troops which could've been used in the relief operation of Stalingrad.

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Nickdfresh » 26 Jan 2017 15:39

Torch was effectively a second Stalingrad for the Wehrmacht, although it could have been worse for them as they were able to get a lot of equipment off to Sicily and eventually the Italian mainland IIRC...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9684
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by ljadw » 26 Jan 2017 16:25

Erwinn wrote:In the end Operation Torch did more than needed. Hitler with his delusional mind, sent a lot of troops to Tunisia to simply lose them 5 months later. The troops which could've been used in the relief operation of Stalingrad.

This is not correct : without the reinforcements sent to Tunesia,the war in NA would be finished much earlier,and not in may 1943.This means that the invasion of Italy could be started earlier and the troops which were not sent to Tunesia, would be needed in Italy and could not go to the east . Besides, it is more than doubtfull that a stronger relief operation of Stalingrad would have been successful .

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Nickdfresh » 26 Jan 2017 17:01

ljadw wrote:
Erwinn wrote:In the end Operation Torch did more than needed. Hitler with his delusional mind, sent a lot of troops to Tunisia to simply lose them 5 months later. The troops which could've been used in the relief operation of Stalingrad.

This is not correct : without the reinforcements sent to Tunesia,the war in NA would be finished much earlier,and not in may 1943.This means that the invasion of Italy could be started earlier and the troops which were not sent to Tunesia, would be needed in Italy and could not go to the east . Besides, it is more than doubtfull that a stronger relief operation of Stalingrad would have been successful .
Define "much earlier"....

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9684
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by ljadw » 27 Jan 2017 08:09

Probably in 1942

Erwinn
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 17 Dec 2014 09:53
Location: Istanbul

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by Erwinn » 27 Jan 2017 10:22

You have Eastern Front with top priority. You're fighting against your arch enemy. You're cornered and you send reinforcements to ill-fated North Africa. At the start you didn't even shown interest in there, not after Rommel had some success. Yet you still couldn't (or didn't) send sufficient troops for him when it's most needed and you decide to pour a lot of troops into NA after Torch and lose them after 5 months.

It should be noted as Smaller Stalingrad, after all you lost 230.000 troops after NA campaign ended.

Rommel had 116.000~ men during 2nd Battle of El Alamein and he lost almost the half of them. So yeah, sending 150.000 + troops to prolong NA Campaign is really something Hitler can do.

Which one is important? Losing NA and remaining Afrika Korps? Or losing 6th Army almost 5 times the size of AK and is in a very important sector.(In your eyes)

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9684
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Strategic Importance of the Eastern front

Post by ljadw » 27 Jan 2017 12:55

1) Torch happened before Uranus,thus there was no reason to not send forces to NA

2 ) On 1 april 1943 the strength of the German forces in NA (army only ) including the PAA AND the 5th Panzer Armee was 130000,of which 25000 returned ,thus Hitler did not send 150000 + men to Tunesia

3 Only half of 6 th Army was encircled at Stalingrad (figures from the now defunct WW2 stats com site)

4 ) At second Alamein,Rommel had 103000 men (half of which were Italians) of which 70 % were saved .

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”