The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 22 May 2019 11:53

ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 11:43
What Bayerlein said was nonsense and it is also disingenuous: ...
ljadw says Bayerlein lies. What a surprise!!! :roll:

Why is it that they only evidence that is not a lie is that which fits your fantasy narrative perfectly?

jesk
Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 22 May 2019 12:04

ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 11:51
jesk wrote:
22 May 2019 09:24
ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 08:44
From June to October 1941,the Axis sent some 500000 tons of supplies to NA of which 82000 tons were lost by Malta Forces = some 16,4 % .
For the whole of 1941 1015000 tons were sent,of which 165000 tons were lost by Malta forces = some 16 % .
Source :Malta and British Strategic Policy 1925-1943 by Douglas Austin .
In 1935 the Mediterranean Fleet left Malta for Alexandria .( Same source ) .
Fighting was conducted until May 1943. The source speaks about sinking of 3/4 transport ships.
Lieutenant-General Fritz Bayerlane wrote:
“Delivery of supplies through the Mediterranean to Rommel’s army was reduced to an average of 6,000 tons per month, meeting only about one-fifth of our usual needs.
Three-quarters of our transports, which transferred supplies from Italy to North Africa, were sunk by British aircraft or the navy. Since we could not create the necessary supplies for the future, any possibility of a decisive battle fell away.
Bayerlein is totally wrong : he said that the monthly Axis needs were 30000 tons of which only 20 % (6000 ) arrived . If this was so, why did the Axis send 500000 ton in 5 month ( June-October 1941 ) of which 133000 ton in June ?
If you need 30000 ton monthly, why sending 133000 ton ?
Besides, if only 20 % of the needed Axis supplies arrived, why could they fight during 3 years in NA ?
You showed the year 1941. It is interesting to see the selection for April 1943.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9269
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 22 May 2019 14:58

April 1943
Shipping losses : 11
Supplies :
sent 48000 tons thus some 25 ships
lost 20000 tons

arrived : 28000
Here also the losses were marginal
The supply losses by Malta forces in 1943 were ; January : 18000 ton, February 17000 ton, March 28000,April 20000, May 11000

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9269
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 22 May 2019 15:00

MarkN wrote:
22 May 2019 11:53
ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 11:43
What Bayerlein said was nonsense and it is also disingenuous: ...
ljadw says Bayerlein lies. What a surprise!!! :roll:

Why is it that they only evidence that is not a lie is that which fits your fantasy narrative perfectly?
Of course he was disingenuous,as he tried to make the Italians responsible for his failure .Something the Germans were very good in .
I am not at all surprised that you agree with Bayerlein .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 22 May 2019 19:03

ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 15:00
MarkN wrote:
22 May 2019 11:53
ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 11:43
What Bayerlein said was nonsense and it is also disingenuous: ...
ljadw says Bayerlein lies. What a surprise!!! :roll:

Why is it that they only evidence that is not a lie is that which fits your fantasy narrative perfectly?
Of course he was disingenuous,as he tried to make the Italians responsible for his failure .Something the Germans were very good in .
I am not at all surprised that you agree with Bayerlein .
Did I write that I agree with Bayerlein? No, I didn't. :roll:

Did I make an observation that, once again, you conveniently disregard anything that contradicts your fantasy narratives as a lie? Yes, I did.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9269
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 23 May 2019 06:14

I said that the Germans were very good in blaming the Italians for their failures .You said that this is a fantasy .
Thus , you agree with Bayerlein .
Or Bayerlein was right, or he was wrong : you said that it is a fantasy to say that he was wrong, that means that for you he was right .
QED .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 23 May 2019 11:09

ljadw wrote:
23 May 2019 06:14
I said that the Germans were very good in blaming the Italians for their failures .You said that this is a fantasy .
Thus , you agree with Bayerlein .
Or Bayerlein was right, or he was wrong : you said that it is a fantasy to say that he was wrong, that means that for you he was right .
QED .
I guess this is an excellent example of how you create falsehoods which you then twist illogically to create a fantasy narrative where the QED only works in your head.

jesk
Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 24 May 2019 07:58

ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 14:58
April 1943
Shipping losses : 11
Supplies :
sent 48000 tons thus some 25 ships
lost 20000 tons

arrived : 28000
Here also the losses were marginal
The supply losses by Malta forces in 1943 were ;April 20000,
Do you understand what you wrote? 42% loss "by Malta forces". To 1942 the number of group grew. In response to the introduction in war of the USA. The ships are few, the supply is not enough.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9269
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 24 May 2019 14:02

jesk wrote:
24 May 2019 07:58
ljadw wrote:
22 May 2019 14:58
April 1943
Shipping losses : 11
Supplies :
sent 48000 tons thus some 25 ships
lost 20000 tons

arrived : 28000
Here also the losses were marginal
The supply losses by Malta forces in 1943 were ;April 20000,
Do you understand what you wrote? 42% loss "by Malta forces". To 1942 the number of group grew. In response to the introduction in war of the USA. The ships are few, the supply is not enough.
Wrong answer : % of losses are irrelevant : It is even more than possible that 42 % means lower losses than 20% .
ONE example: September 1941: sent 94000 tons, arrived 67000 ton, lost 28 % or 27000 tons ,
42 % in April 1943 meant 20000 tons ,while 28 % in September 1941 meant 27000 ton .
What was important was what arrived,and what arrived was not determined by what was lost underway, but by what was sent .
In December 1942 98000 tons were sent to NA,of which 67000 tons arrived,31000 tons were lost some 32 % .But if 50 % was lost, still 49000 tons would arrive , more than in April 1943 . If 0% was lost in April 1943, only 48000 tons would arrive, less than in September 1941,if in this month 50 % was lost .
Besides what was arriving in April 1943 was irrelevant, as the dies were cast already .
The supplies arriving in NA were sufficient, otherwise the Axis could not invade Egypt and could not fight in NA during 3 years .
Other point, there is no proof that the amount of supplies that arrived in NA had an influence on the fighting :
June 1942 : Tobruk big Axis victory : 32000 tons of supplies arrived
November 1942 : Alamein : big British victory : 63000 ton arrived .
If supplies are that important, why did the Axis lose at Alamein when the double of supplies arrived than in June when the Axis won at Tobruk ?
It is the same for the boms dropped on Malta :
January 1942 : 669 tons of bombs were dropped and 66000 tons of supplies arrived
February : 1020 tons of bombs and 59000 tons of supplies
March :2170 and 47000
April : 6700 and 150000
May : 520 and 86000
In May only the half of the amount of Bombs were dropped of February but the number of supplies increased by 50 % .
Thus we have here : less bombings and more supplies .The reason is simple : in May more supplies were sent than in February .

jesk
Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 26 May 2019 19:50

ljadw wrote:
24 May 2019 14:02
The supplies arriving in NA were sufficient, otherwise the Axis could not invade Egypt and could not fight in NA during 3 years .
Other point, there is no proof that the amount of supplies that arrived in NA had an influence on the fighting :
June 1942 : Tobruk big Axis victory : 32000 tons of supplies arrived
November 1942 : Alamein : big British victory : 63000 ton arrived .
If supplies are that important, why did the Axis lose at Alamein when the double of supplies arrived than in June when the Axis won at Tobruk ?
It is logic on the basis of limited information. Supply in Africa trubut more detailed analysis.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”