But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.Peter89 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:42Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.
From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.
Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
Soviet failure during Barbarossa
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
-
- Member
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
- Location: Europe
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
Not again, please... there WERE offensive plans, I cited them to you before. Would you like to take a second look? Shall I quote them here, too?jesk wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:47But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.Peter89 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:42Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.
From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.
Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
Of course, quote. The Germans did not want to attack !!! I think so.Peter89 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 11:25Not again, please... there WERE offensive plans, I cited them to you before. Would you like to take a second look? Shall I quote them here, too?jesk wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:47But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.Peter89 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:42Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.
From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.
Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
- Location: Coruscant
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
One of the reasons why a defensive stance is adopted as it is deemed to be necessary, is that offensive action may show no success.But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Top
-
- Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
- Location: Earth
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.jesk wrote: ↑13 Dec 2018 22:28Even more funny as Germans were powerless to capture Moscow in 1942, being in 80 km from it. Leningrad... 0 kmDavidFrankenberg wrote: ↑13 Dec 2018 20:18Funny how we could talk about "soviet failure during barbarossa" whereas it was a soviet success and a german failure indeed !
Hitler had no choice. He could not do a "long war" as you said. He had no resource to go on a long war.Stiltzkin wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 04:37I honestly think that after the failure of Barbarossa, the High Command opted for a long war, that is why they grabbed for resources in the caucasus. They could not knock out the Soviets in a quick strike, but could do so via an (economic) long war, however they were unable to effectively defend Central Europe (and mount a defense in the Atlantic) without sufficient oil. In Case Blue, their Allies gave them a false sense of security - Heeresgruppe Süd overextended and parts of it were annihilated, which consequently threatened all formations in the entire theatre.
After the failure of Barbarossa, he tried to take the oil of the Caucasus just to stay alive... but he failed again...
-
- Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
- Location: Earth
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
Of course, Germans tried to take Leningrad every year of the war... but they failed again and again... Since they failed, their propaganda imagined the myth of the volunteer siege of it...Stiltzkin wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 00:33One of the reasons why a defensive stance is adopted as it is deemed to be necessary, is that offensive action may show no success.But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Top
After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
In 1941 the germans also failed to take Leningrad. The forces they planned to use were destroyed en route between the border and the city... they put the siege before Leningrad far too late etc... they had only disappointment there !
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
This is the simplest logic, but after a successful 1941 with 4 million prisoners, access to the approaches to Moscow and Leningrad, the inability of an army group to advance looks questionable. So if in the group "South" there were 45 German divisions, in the group "Center" 70. In the south attacked, Moscow inability.Stiltzkin wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 00:33One of the reasons why a defensive stance is adopted as it is deemed to be necessary, is that offensive action may show no success.But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Top
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.DavidFrankenberg wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 01:15They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
Even after losing Romania, the Germans were able to continue the war. Caucasus oil is a farce as a cause. About reasons for the failure of the offensive, low concentration of forces. In the fall of Tuapse, there was a strong thaw in the fall, the attacks there were wrong. Instead of hitting the rear of Georgia, the Germans attacked north. The map is markedly wrong place of attack.Hitler had no choice. He could not do a "long war" as you said. He had no resource to go on a long war.
After the failure of Barbarossa, he tried to take the oil of the Caucasus just to stay alive... but he failed again...
If this is not irony. On September 3, 1942, Hitler once again postponed the date of the attack on Leningrad for an indefinite period. Participation in this Russian is doubtful. The Germans repulsed all Soviet attacks without any problems. Of course, the Russians always attacked. The Germans could do it too!Of course, Germans tried to take Leningrad every year of the war... but they failed again and again... Since they failed, their propaganda imagined the myth of the volunteer siege of it...
After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
In 1941 the germans also failed to take Leningrad. The forces they planned to use were destroyed en route between the border and the city... they put the siege before Leningrad far too late etc... they had only disappointment there !
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
Personally Hitler banned the operation to eliminate the bridgehead. Made by the Führer.


-
- Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
- Location: Earth
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
You say "Hitler wanted to attack" and then "Hitler cancelled the attack".jesk wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 06:45In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.DavidFrankenberg wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 01:15They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
ancel the attack ?
Because he could not do so... Why ? because the germans suffered heavy losses before arriving in front of Leningrad and during the siege.
They were able to continue to lose the war...Even after losing Romania, the Germans were able to continue the war.Hitler had no choice. He could not do a "long war" as you said. He had no resource to go on a long war.
After the failure of Barbarossa, he tried to take the oil of the Caucasus just to stay alive... but he failed again...
So what ? They just failed.Caucasus oil is a farce as a cause. About reasons for the failure of the offensive, low concentration of forces. In the fall of Tuapse, there was a strong thaw in the fall, the attacks there were wrong. Instead of hitting the rear of Georgia, the Germans attacked north. The map is markedly wrong place of attack.
Why should it be ?If this is not irony.Of course, Germans tried to take Leningrad every year of the war... but they failed again and again... Since they failed, their propaganda imagined the myth of the volunteer siege of it...
After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
In 1941 the germans also failed to take Leningrad. The forces they planned to use were destroyed en route between the border and the city... they put the siege before Leningrad far too late etc... they had only disappointment there !
Why Hitler postponed the attack ? Because his forces before Leningrad were heavily diminished by the attacks of the Soviet forces !On September 3, 1942, Hitler once again postponed the date of the attack on Leningrad for an indefinite period. Participation in this Russian is doubtful. The Germans repulsed all Soviet attacks without any problems. Of course, the Russians always attacked. The Germans could do it too!
That side of history is not told often in western Europe.
-
- Member
- Posts: 657
- Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
- Location: scotland
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
27 August 1942 Mansteins HQ 11th army moved to the North of Leningrad: While ambitious plans had been made to "raze leningrad to the ground" these were pre empted by the Volkov fronts.DavidFrankenburg wrote - After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
Hitler telephoned Manstein directly 4 September to "restore the situation" p.278 Manstein (Melvin)
"so instead of launching the major assault on Leningrad 11th army was used as a fire brigade to master a local crisis" ibid p,278
you can find mansteins description on p,262,263,264 Lost Victories (Manstein)
While he had intended to mount an operation to "break through the front south of Leningrad" p,264 this never took place. His intention was to close the encirclement properly.
I would say in this instance the soviets pre-empted the German assault so it is tenuous to say he failed as events over took 11th army and then events in the South removed him from that part of the theatre:
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
This is boorish logic. You have to check your conclusions with sources at least a little. In September 1941 there was a cancellation of the planned strike across the Neva, for the complete blockade of Leningrad, in favor of the redistribution of resources for the attack on Tikhvin.DavidFrankenberg wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 09:45You say "Hitler wanted to attack" and then "Hitler cancelled the attack".jesk wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 06:45In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.DavidFrankenberg wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 01:15They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
ancel the attack ?
Because he could not do so... Why ? because the germans suffered heavy losses before arriving in front of Leningrad and during the siege.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
- Location: Europe
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
Very well. I created a new topic for this matter, and you are welcome to continue our discussion there! viewtopic.php?f=76&t=239032jesk wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 18:16Of course, quote. The Germans did not want to attack !!! I think so.Peter89 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 11:25Not again, please... there WERE offensive plans, I cited them to you before. Would you like to take a second look? Shall I quote them here, too?jesk wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:47But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.Peter89 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2018 10:42Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.
From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.
Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
- Location: Belarus
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
In 1942, any attack on Leningrad led to fall of the city. Cut off from the main forces Soviet armies quickly destroyed. The Germans would have shot down elementary defenders of the city. Stalingrad stayed because fresh meat was shipped along the Volga every day.doogal wrote: ↑16 Dec 2018 15:0827 August 1942 Mansteins HQ 11th army moved to the North of Leningrad: While ambitious plans had been made to "raze leningrad to the ground" these were pre empted by the Volkov fronts.DavidFrankenburg wrote - After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
Hitler telephoned Manstein directly 4 September to "restore the situation" p.278 Manstein (Melvin)
"so instead of launching the major assault on Leningrad 11th army was used as a fire brigade to master a local crisis" ibid p,278
you can find mansteins description on p,262,263,264 Lost Victories (Manstein)
While he had intended to mount an operation to "break through the front south of Leningrad" p,264 this never took place. His intention was to close the encirclement properly.
I would say in this instance the soviets pre-empted the German assault so it is tenuous to say he failed as events over took 11th army and then events in the South removed him from that part of the theatre:
90% of the operation to seize Leningrad was carried out in 1941. The transfer of Manstein with artillery from Sevastopol is the same farce as the campaign for oil ... Very and very easily in 1942 the Germans could crush the Leningrad front and take the city.

-
- Member
- Posts: 657
- Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
- Location: scotland
Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa
Please show how they could crush the "Leningrad front!" in 1942(an extra arrow on a map really doesn't explain anything ), then please explain why this course of action wasn't taken:jesk wrote - In 1942, any attack on Leningrad led to fall of the city. Cut off from the main forces Soviet armies quickly destroyed. The Germans would have shot down elementary defenders of the city. Stalingrad stayed because fresh meat was shipped along the Volga every day.
90% of the operation to seize Leningrad was carried out in 1941. The transfer of Manstein with artillery from Sevastopol is the same farce as the campaign for oil ... Very and very easily in 1942 the Germans could crush the Leningrad front and take the city.
Then you can explain the reason that the 11th army went to AGN in Aug/Sep 1942 if it was a farce: