The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 20 Apr 2019 07:41

Jesk wrote:. Facts, documents, testimonies point to Hitler’s sole leadership over the Wehrmacht
First let me apologize to anyone reading along. If there were an "ignore poster" function (is there? Couldn't find it) I would not engage with this moron.

Jesk you shown again a child's understanding of leadership. Yes Hitler was in charge formally but even a teenager who's watched game of thrones knows that formal authority charts don't encapsulate reality.

Hitler was sensitive to opposition internally and receptive to well-argued cases against his whims. Why didn't he invade France in December 1939? Because his generals convinced him not to and might have killed him had he tried.

Nothing like that threat/argument occurred re Barbarossa because Halder and co were actually stupider than Hitler regarding Russia. Had Hitler followed Halder the Ostheer would have suffered the same fate as the Grand Armee.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 07:55

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:41
Why didn't he invade France in December 1939? Because his generals convinced him not to and might have killed him had he tried.
I do not even know what to say. You must cite sources to prove a statement. Manstein, for example, claimed Hitler twice stopped tanks. The first on the Sedan, the second Dunkirk.
Maybe the defeat of France was unexpected for Hitler. Later he improved. Germany was unable to fight on 2 fronts. :lol:

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 08:06

Attentive Forczyk remarked, from despair the Russians sent "paper" divisions to the front. The situation is like the British after Dunkirk. There are people, many people. Nothing to arm them. On the issue of 5 million Russian soldiers. 8-)
The new Soviet rifle divisions raised after Smolensk had so little artillery and anti-tank guns that even depleted panzer divisions had little difficulty punching through them.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9544
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by ljadw » 20 Apr 2019 08:49

It failed to win in WWI,which was a long war. It would also fail in WWII .
FYI ! : it failed in WWII .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9544
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by ljadw » 20 Apr 2019 08:50

jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:55
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:41
Why didn't he invade France in December 1939? Because his generals convinced him not to and might have killed him had he tried.
I do not even know what to say. You must cite sources to prove a statement. Manstein, for example, claimed Hitler twice stopped tanks. The first on the Sedan, the second Dunkirk.
Maybe the defeat of France was unexpected for Hitler. Later he improved. Germany was unable to fight on 2 fronts. :lol:
Proof for the claim of Manstein ?

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 08:52

ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019 08:49
It failed to win in WWI,which was a long war. It would also fail in WWII .
FYI ! : it failed in WWII .
But Germany crushed France. In the first war resources of Germany exactly there were burned. Logic. There is no logic.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 08:54

ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019 08:50
jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:55
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:41
Why didn't he invade France in December 1939? Because his generals convinced him not to and might have killed him had he tried.
I do not even know what to say. You must cite sources to prove a statement. Manstein, for example, claimed Hitler twice stopped tanks. The first on the Sedan, the second Dunkirk.
Maybe the defeat of France was unexpected for Hitler. Later he improved. Germany was unable to fight on 2 fronts. :lol:
Proof for the claim of Manstein ?
Guderian was wrong too. He claimed the same. They all lie and come up with the blame on Hitler. It is so?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9544
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by ljadw » 20 Apr 2019 08:59

jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019 08:06
Attentive Forczyk remarked, from despair the Russians sent "paper" divisions to the front. The situation is like the British after Dunkirk. There are people, many people. Nothing to arm them. On the issue of 5 million Russian soldiers. 8-)
The new Soviet rifle divisions raised after Smolensk had so little artillery and anti-tank guns that even depleted panzer divisions had little difficulty punching through them.
You don't need anti-tank guns to stop a PzD .
Never heard of snipers ? Of anti-tank mines ? Besides, without the support of the ID, the PzD were unable to do anything . See what happened at Dunkirk .Tanks without the support of infantry and artillery are good for under the bus .
And , it is obvious that you even don't know what happened in August 1941 : the Germans lost 200000 men, 200000 men .
Not bad for paper divisions .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9544
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by ljadw » 20 Apr 2019 09:01

jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019 08:54
ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019 08:50
jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:55
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:41
Why didn't he invade France in December 1939? Because his generals convinced him not to and might have killed him had he tried.
I do not even know what to say. You must cite sources to prove a statement. Manstein, for example, claimed Hitler twice stopped tanks. The first on the Sedan, the second Dunkirk.
Maybe the defeat of France was unexpected for Hitler. Later he improved. Germany was unable to fight on 2 fronts. :lol:
Proof for the claim of Manstein ?
Guderian was wrong too. He claimed the same. They all lie and come up with the blame on Hitler. It is so?
I asked for a proof for the claim by Manstein . Not for an unproved claim by Guderian .
Besides : Manstein was not involved in Fall Gelb .

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 09:45

ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019 08:59
You don't need anti-tank guns to stop a PzD .
Never heard of snipers ? Of anti-tank mines ? Besides, without the support of the ID, the PzD were unable to do anything . See what happened at Dunkirk .Tanks without the support of infantry and artillery are good for under the bus .
And , it is obvious that you even don't know what happened in August 1941 : the Germans lost 200000 men, 200000 men .
Not bad for paper divisions .
90+% loss of tanks from artillery fire. Sniper why? Well, not 200, 100 thousand in small operations around Smolensk. Von Bock didn’t like them and he suggested moving on. And in the tank divisions own infantry. On machines, unlike horse infantry divisions. It is so easy to logically calculate infantry in tank divisions! What happened in Dunkirk? :lol:
ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019 09:01
I asked for a proof for the claim by Manstein . Not for an unproved claim by Guderian .
Besides : Manstein was not involved in Fall Gelb .
Manstein repeated for Guderian. The first order to stop May 17. All the German generals already on May 17 knew about Hitler’s stop-order.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/guderian/05.html
After the brilliant success of May 16 and the successful battles of the 41st Army Corps, I couldn’t even think that my bosses were still thinking of consolidating on the bridgehead at the Meuse and waiting for the arrival of the infantry corps. I was completely overwhelmed by the idea that I expressed in March on a report from Hitler, namely, to complete the breakthrough and not stop all the way to the English Channel. I absolutely could not imagine that Hitler himself, endorsing Manstein’s bold plan of attack and not protesting against my plan to make a breakthrough, could be afraid of his own courage and stop the offensive. However, I was terribly mistaken, it became clear to me the next morning.
On the morning of May 17, I was told from the headquarters of the tank group that the offensive should be stopped, and I should appear at 7 o'clock. on the landing pad for a personal conversation with General von Kleist. The latter appeared exactly at the appointed time and, not responding to my greeting, began to sharply accuse me of ignoring the plans of the high command. He did not say a word about the success of my troops. When the first storm had passed and there was a lull, I asked to be removed from command. General von Kleist was surprised, then nodded his head and ordered me to transfer the command of the corps to my senior commander. At this point our conversation was over. I went to the command post, summoned General Feiel, and gave him command of the corps.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by MarkN » 20 Apr 2019 10:06

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Apr 2019 07:41
Jesk wrote:. Facts, documents, testimonies point to Hitler’s sole leadership over the Wehrmacht
First let me apologize to anyone reading along. If there were an "ignore poster" function (is there? Couldn't find it) I would not engage with this moron.

Jesk you shown again a child's understanding of leadership. Yes Hitler was in charge formally but even a teenager who's watched game of thrones knows that formal authority charts don't encapsulate reality.

Hitler was sensitive to opposition internally and receptive to well-argued cases against his whims. Why didn't he invade France in December 1939? Because his generals convinced him not to and might have killed him had he tried.

Nothing like that threat/argument occurred re Barbarossa because Halder and co were actually stupider than Hitler regarding Russia. Had Hitler followed Halder the Ostheer would have suffered the same fate as the Grand Armee.
Jesk and ljadw are a pair of clowns playing push me-pull me. Both have fantasy narratives as absurd as absurd can be. ljadw floods thread after thread repeatedly with his 'short war' fantasy when the evidence says the complete opposite. Jesk's fantasy that Hitler was working for the Allies to create the EU.... Enuff said!

This site claims to be a site for serious historical research, discussion and learning. And yet site management seems not just to tolerate clowns and fantasy narratives, but to encourage them.

:welcome:

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 10:53

Such thoughts are really for the elect. Do not repeat them often. But, Hitler released the English from Dunkirk, won battle for Britain and refused to land on the islands. Сould beat Russia 1000 times and many many other mistakes. In such a context for the "right" minds, Hitler was stubborn and did not understand much.
Today is 130 years since the birth of Hitler. Stories about him are welcome. :)

Image

John T
Member
Posts: 1151
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by John T » 20 Apr 2019 13:22

MarkN wrote:
20 Apr 2019 10:06

This site claims to be a site for serious historical research, discussion and learning. And yet site management seems not just to tolerate clowns and fantasy narratives, but to encourage them.

:welcome:
One huge problem with the subject of History today is the wish from all kind of actors to remake their own tales.
just remember you cant win a discussion on the internet, only provide a more accurate description of the events.
and try to find a way to manage it without wasting too much time and energy
So just feed the troll with caution.


On the other hand I find AHF's diversity a big strength,
to see history with others eye's have widen my perspectives over the years.


Cheers
/John

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by jesk » 20 Apr 2019 15:15

In this topic, concerning logistics, referred to David Stahel. Yes, he writes books and performs with lectures. But, he has a hypothesis and it is absurd. The list of those who do not understand can be continued, and their majority.

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East (Cambridge Military Histories) Paperback – May 30, 2011

Image

R. A Forczyk

A Well-Argued but Absurd Hypothesis

In his calculus, which he argues relentlessly from beginning to the end of the book, Barbarossa was "doomed to fail." Readers looking for a straight-up military history or an insightful piece of military analysis will not find it in these pages, although the author does present a great deal of information. I give him credit for laying out his case and for readers not familiar with the Eastern Front, it might even be convincing. However, rather than asking `could Germany have defeated the Soviet Union?' the author employs a Reductio ad absurdum approach that leads to no useful conclusions. In his calculus, the Third Reich lost because it had to lose.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Post by gracie4241 » 20 Apr 2019 18:45

Germany by late 1942 was MUCH stronger than the Soviet Union.As Stalin noted in Order 227 60 MILLION russians lived under german control then, and their irreparable losses were (not admitted)5-6 times that of Germany.The Soviet Union at that point had lost its prospective population advantage: its GDP was only 60% of germany's-and that counts a 5% boost from Lend Lease( Bellamy, "Total War).Overall germany had a technological advantage, and its forces and battlefield leadership a distinct unit for unit qualitative edge.A clear German victory was certain in the future.....if the Soviet Union was alone and unaided.It took 1914-18 for germany to defeat Tsarist(and then Bolshevik) russia.There was no "magic benefit" to time alone. The deadline/time pressure felt by Hitler related to the growing power and threat from the Western Allies.How killing your enemy at 5-6 to one does'nt lead LONG TERM to victory is a most curious concept

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”