The Logistics of Barbarossa (or lack of it)

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 14 Dec 2019 17:57

BDV wrote:
12 Dec 2019 14:25
MarkN wrote: BDV: But that's what Soviets did [defend forward]. At which points Germans gambled on there being no more Soviets behind those already at the front (also, if there are no more Soviets, logistics is not going to matter to boot!). With results that speak for themselves.
The Heer didn't gamble at all.

They calculated, with combat report data, numbers and math not guesswork, that the Soviets had nothing left.

So, you say that they gambled that their guesswork was correct?

LJADW's logic carries the day, then.

There were no more Sovjets because there HAD to be no more Sovjets.
A calculation was made which was mentioned earlier in this discussion.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 14 Dec 2019 18:01

MarkN wrote:
12 Dec 2019 19:38
BDV wrote:
12 Dec 2019 17:58
MarkN wrote: No. The Heer didn't gamble at all. Nor did they guess.
They guessed that ALL their major estimates (enemy troops engaged in battle, enemy troops eliminated, available RKKA troops) were correct. There was no verification procedure, except trial by fire.
Nope, no guessing at all. Far worse. They assumed that every formation encountered was completely destroyed. Bit of a flaw, ej?

All they had to do was spend 5 seconds comparing the body count (dead and alive) to see the flaw. But, alas, it seems that was too much for the OKH.

PS. Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.
Is not what they did. It is you that is overstating what the FHO said Has been pointed out before in detail.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 14 Dec 2019 19:08

Aida1 wrote:
14 Dec 2019 18:01
MarkN wrote:
12 Dec 2019 19:38
BDV wrote:
12 Dec 2019 17:58
MarkN wrote:No. The Heer didn't gamble at all. Nor did they guess.
They guessed that ALL their major estimates (enemy troops engaged in battle, enemy troops eliminated, available RKKA troops) were correct. There was no verification procedure, except trial by fire.
Nope, no guessing at all. Far worse. They assumed that every formation encountered was completely destroyed. Bit of a flaw, ej?

All they had to do was spend 5 seconds comparing the body count (dead and alive) to see the flaw. But, alas, it seems that was too much for the OKH.

PS. Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.
Is not what they did. It is you that is overstating what the FHO said Has been pointed out before in detail.
Really?

If by "pointed out" you are referring to your own evidence-free posts, then they don't count.

PS. Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 429
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

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

Post by Peter89 » 14 Dec 2019 20:22

ljadw wrote:
13 Dec 2019 17:01
The case of the Western powers being allied to Germany is a fantasy and can be discarded .Besides, their input for Barbarossa would be meaningless .
The eventuality of the Western powers being neutral would make Barbarossa unnecessary,and also impossible : a neutral France + Britain in June 1941 would tie more German forces than were tied by a defeated France and fighting Britain in the OTL of 1941 .
June 1941 was the best scenario for the Germans : 150 divisions for Barbarossa, 50 tied elsewhere ( most of then not fit for Barbarossa ).
ALL other scenarios would be worse for Germany :
Britain and France neutral would result in a weaker Ostheer with less than 150 divisions.
Britain and France defeated and occupied would result in an even more weaker Ostheer : the occupation of Britain and Ireland would require 30 additional divisions,and only 120 would remain for Barbarossa .
The Western powers could benefit a lot from a passive bystander position and this pov was supported by a later president Harry Truman:
"If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.”
Make no mistake, it was the grace of the Western powers and Stalin's formidable skills in negotiation that brought the superpower status for the SU.

Had they decided otherwise and followed Truman's policy instead of Roosevelt's, Germany could have achieved a bloody stalemate with the SU.

And if you think that the elevation of the SU into the ranks of superpowers was in line with anglo-saxon interests, you are mistaken.

The SU would have been attacked by the Reich, sooner or later. Contrary to your belief, the Reich was nowhere near an economicl collapse in 1941. It was unsustainable and failing, but collapse was far away - they kept on fighting for 3/4 years with an improving military production despite the tremendous attrition and losses

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10262
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 14 Dec 2019 22:29

I never said that the Reich was collapsing in 1941 .
And, it is no so that the SU would have been attacked by Germany,sooner or later ,because if Germany won the war in the west, it could not attack the SU and win , and if there was no war with the west, Germany could also not attack the SU . The occupation of Britain would prevent the WM to defeat the SU .To attack the SU,Germany needed to attack Poland and an attack against Poland meant war with the Wallies .
Besides, there was no reason to attack the SU if the war in the west was won .
The superpower status of the SU was brought by its victory against Germany .
And what Truman was saying ,was meaningless ,because victory of Germany against the SU or the opposite was no reason for the US to intervene . No one in the US cared about the SU or Germany, they cared about France and Britain .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 14 Dec 2019 22:49

MarkN wrote:
14 Dec 2019 19:08
Aida1 wrote:
14 Dec 2019 18:01
MarkN wrote:
12 Dec 2019 19:38
BDV wrote:
12 Dec 2019 17:58
MarkN wrote:No. The Heer didn't gamble at all. Nor did they guess.
They guessed that ALL their major estimates (enemy troops engaged in battle, enemy troops eliminated, available RKKA troops) were correct. There was no verification procedure, except trial by fire.
Nope, no guessing at all. Far worse. They assumed that every formation encountered was completely destroyed. Bit of a flaw, ej?

All they had to do was spend 5 seconds comparing the body count (dead and alive) to see the flaw. But, alas, it seems that was too much for the OKH.

PS. Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.
Is not what they did. It is you that is overstating what the FHO said Has been pointed out before in detail.
Really?

If by "pointed out" you are referring to your own evidence-free posts, then they don't count.

PS. Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.
You gave an exaggerated interpretation to an FHO assessment because it suited your pet theory.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 15 Dec 2019 00:58

Aida1 wrote:
14 Dec 2019 22:49
You gave an exaggerated interpretation to an FHO assessment because it suited your pet theory.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I posted a exerpt - for all to see - of the FHO assessment itself.

The assessment where the FHO indicates that the Red Army had already suffered 3-4 times the losses that they had actually incurred. An error that could be easily recognised by a simple comparison with the Soviet body count (dead and alive) that the Heer had overrun.

PS.
Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 15 Dec 2019 07:31

MarkN wrote:
15 Dec 2019 00:58
Aida1 wrote:
14 Dec 2019 22:49
You gave an exaggerated interpretation to an FHO assessment because it suited your pet theory.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I posted a exerpt - for all to see - of the FHO assessment itself.

The assessment where the FHO indicates that the Red Army had already suffered 3-4 times the losses that they had actually incurred. An error that could be easily recognised by a simple comparison with the Soviet body count (dead and alive) that the Heer had overrun.

PS.
Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.
It was pointed out to you in detail that you did not understand the difference between the combat strength of a unit and its total strength. You applied the reduction in combat strength not only on the total strength of the divisions but even on anything above that to arrive at supposedly overinflated German claims.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 429
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

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

Post by Peter89 » 15 Dec 2019 09:12

ljadw wrote:
14 Dec 2019 22:29
I never said that the Reich was collapsing in 1941 .
And, it is no so that the SU would have been attacked by Germany,sooner or later ,because if Germany won the war in the west, it could not attack the SU and win , and if there was no war with the west, Germany could also not attack the SU . The occupation of Britain would prevent the WM to defeat the SU .To attack the SU,Germany needed to attack Poland and an attack against Poland meant war with the Wallies .
Besides, there was no reason to attack the SU if the war in the west was won .
The superpower status of the SU was brought by its victory against Germany .
And what Truman was saying ,was meaningless ,because victory of Germany against the SU or the opposite was no reason for the US to intervene . No one in the US cared about the SU or Germany, they cared about France and Britain .
Had the war in the west be won, the Reich could master enormous resources and prepare a war machine in depth. In time they could field more than 150 divisions with better equipment and such.

You're wrong if you think the Reich would have stopped at Poland. See the New Order and the agreement they signed with the Japanese on 18 January 1942. Especially since the SU had a pretty large ethnic German minority. See Volga Germans and their Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

And the victory of SU was brought by the LL and the western fronts.

The US really did care about the Germany and the SU, thus they helped to defeat the former and aided the latter.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 15 Dec 2019 11:31

Aida1 wrote:
15 Dec 2019 07:31
It was pointed out to you in detail that you did not understand the difference between the combat strength of a unit and its total strength. You applied the reduction in combat strength not only on the total strength of the divisions but even on anything above that to arrive at supposedly overinflated German claims.
If by "it was pointed out to you in detail" you mean your own posts where you try to deny the documentary evidence by rambling on about tangental issues with no evidence or any attempt to connect your ramblings to the history - then they don't count.

I posted a excerpt - for all to see - of the FHO assessment itself.

The assessment where the FHO indicates that the Red Army had already suffered 3-4 times the losses that they had actually incurred. An error that could be easily recognised by a simple comparison with the Soviet body count (dead and alive) that the Heer had overrun.

I was not me that overinflated the losses of the Red Army up to the beginning of August, it was the FHO and OKH who did that.


PS.
Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10262
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 15 Dec 2019 12:25

Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2019 09:12
ljadw wrote:
14 Dec 2019 22:29
I never said that the Reich was collapsing in 1941 .
And, it is no so that the SU would have been attacked by Germany,sooner or later ,because if Germany won the war in the west, it could not attack the SU and win , and if there was no war with the west, Germany could also not attack the SU . The occupation of Britain would prevent the WM to defeat the SU .To attack the SU,Germany needed to attack Poland and an attack against Poland meant war with the Wallies .
Besides, there was no reason to attack the SU if the war in the west was won .
The superpower status of the SU was brought by its victory against Germany .
And what Truman was saying ,was meaningless ,because victory of Germany against the SU or the opposite was no reason for the US to intervene . No one in the US cared about the SU or Germany, they cared about France and Britain .
Had the war in the west be won, the Reich could master enormous resources and prepare a war machine in depth. In time they could field more than 150 divisions with better equipment and such.

You're wrong if you think the Reich would have stopped at Poland. See the New Order and the agreement they signed with the Japanese on 18 January 1942. Especially since the SU had a pretty large ethnic German minority. See Volga Germans and their Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

And the victory of SU was brought by the LL and the western fronts.

The US really did care about the Germany and the SU, thus they helped to defeat the former and aided the latter.
1 The occupation of Britain and Ireland would claim 30 divisions, thus the Ostheer would have only 120 divisions in June 1941 instead of 150 .
2 The invasion of Poland meant war with the Wallies. Defeat of the wallies would prevent invasion of the SU .
3 The Soviet victory happened regardless LL and the western fronts . The SU would even have won if Britain had surrendered or if there was no war with the west .
4 Without the defeat of France, US would not intervene to prevent Germany from defeating the SU .20 years before US had intervened on the side of France and the UK to eliminate the communist regime in Russia .There was no reason why they should prevent Hitler from eliminating the Soviets .The statement of Truman was wrong as ,when he said it, there were 2 wars going: Britain against Germany, SU against Germany and it was impossible to support at the same time Britain against Hitler and Hitler against the SU .
Hitler's victory against the SU would not endanger the US,and Stalin's victory against Germany also would not endanger the US ,but Hitler's victory against Britain would endanger the US .
5 After his victory in Poland ,Hitler proposed the west peace ( at his conditions ) ,because he knew that the longer the war ,the less chance he had . And if the west accepted his proposal, there would be no war against the SU, because there was no need for such a war .Hitler did not care about the Volga Germans .
There is no proof that after his victory against Poland, against France Hitler made concrete plans to attack the SU .The decision to attack the SU was made in DEcember 1940, the execution started in June 1941 . But,if meanwhile Britain had surrendered, Barbarossa would have been cancelled .
Outside the fellow travellers and their friends, there was no sympathy for the SU in the US and the sympathy for the nazis was inexistent .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 15 Dec 2019 12:49

MarkN wrote:
15 Dec 2019 11:31
Aida1 wrote:
15 Dec 2019 07:31
It was pointed out to you in detail that you did not understand the difference between the combat strength of a unit and its total strength. You applied the reduction in combat strength not only on the total strength of the divisions but even on anything above that to arrive at supposedly overinflated German claims.
If by "it was pointed out to you in detail" you mean your own posts where you try to deny the documentary evidence by rambling on about tangental issues with no evidence or any attempt to connect your ramblings to the history - then they don't count.

I posted a excerpt - for all to see - of the FHO assessment itself.

The assessment where the FHO indicates that the Red Army had already suffered 3-4 times the losses that they had actually incurred. An error that could be easily recognised by a simple comparison with the Soviet body count (dead and alive) that the Heer had overrun.

I was not me that overinflated the losses of the Red Army up to the beginning of August, it was the FHO and OKH who did that.


PS.
Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.
You did overinflate the losses by - at some point, even applying the reduction in combat strength on the total mobilisable strength of the red army in order to make Halder look like a fool. The only thing the FHO underestimated was the ability of the red army to replace losses in men and equipment and set up new units.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 15 Dec 2019 12:55

Aida1 wrote:
15 Dec 2019 12:49
You did overinflate the losses by - at some point, even applying the reduction in combat strength on the total mobilisable strength of the red army in order to make Halder look like a fool. The only thing the FHO underestimated was the ability of the red army to replace losses in men and equipment and set up new units.
I posted a excerpt - for all to see - of the FHO assessment itself.

The assessment where the FHO indicates that the Red Army had already suffered 3-4 times the losses that they had actually incurred. An error that could be easily recognised by a simple comparison with the Soviet body count (dead and alive) that the Heer had overrun.

I was not me that overinflated the losses of the Red Army up to the beginning of August, it was the FHO and OKH who did that.

If you wish to continue denying to yourself the historical evidence, so be it. I bothers me not.


PS.
Since nobody else is bothering to evidence their comments, l won't bother either.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 429
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

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

Post by Peter89 » 15 Dec 2019 15:50

ljadw wrote:
15 Dec 2019 12:25
Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2019 09:12
ljadw wrote:
14 Dec 2019 22:29
I never said that the Reich was collapsing in 1941 .
And, it is no so that the SU would have been attacked by Germany,sooner or later ,because if Germany won the war in the west, it could not attack the SU and win , and if there was no war with the west, Germany could also not attack the SU . The occupation of Britain would prevent the WM to defeat the SU .To attack the SU,Germany needed to attack Poland and an attack against Poland meant war with the Wallies .
Besides, there was no reason to attack the SU if the war in the west was won .
The superpower status of the SU was brought by its victory against Germany .
And what Truman was saying ,was meaningless ,because victory of Germany against the SU or the opposite was no reason for the US to intervene . No one in the US cared about the SU or Germany, they cared about France and Britain .
Had the war in the west be won, the Reich could master enormous resources and prepare a war machine in depth. In time they could field more than 150 divisions with better equipment and such.

You're wrong if you think the Reich would have stopped at Poland. See the New Order and the agreement they signed with the Japanese on 18 January 1942. Especially since the SU had a pretty large ethnic German minority. See Volga Germans and their Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

And the victory of SU was brought by the LL and the western fronts.

The US really did care about the Germany and the SU, thus they helped to defeat the former and aided the latter.
1 The occupation of Britain and Ireland would claim 30 divisions, thus the Ostheer would have only 120 divisions in June 1941 instead of 150 .
2 The invasion of Poland meant war with the Wallies. Defeat of the wallies would prevent invasion of the SU .
3 The Soviet victory happened regardless LL and the western fronts . The SU would even have won if Britain had surrendered or if there was no war with the west .
4 Without the defeat of France, US would not intervene to prevent Germany from defeating the SU .20 years before US had intervened on the side of France and the UK to eliminate the communist regime in Russia .There was no reason why they should prevent Hitler from eliminating the Soviets .The statement of Truman was wrong as ,when he said it, there were 2 wars going: Britain against Germany, SU against Germany and it was impossible to support at the same time Britain against Hitler and Hitler against the SU .
Hitler's victory against the SU would not endanger the US,and Stalin's victory against Germany also would not endanger the US ,but Hitler's victory against Britain would endanger the US .
5 After his victory in Poland ,Hitler proposed the west peace ( at his conditions ) ,because he knew that the longer the war ,the less chance he had . And if the west accepted his proposal, there would be no war against the SU, because there was no need for such a war .Hitler did not care about the Volga Germans .
There is no proof that after his victory against Poland, against France Hitler made concrete plans to attack the SU .The decision to attack the SU was made in DEcember 1940, the execution started in June 1941 . But,if meanwhile Britain had surrendered, Barbarossa would have been cancelled .
Outside the fellow travellers and their friends, there was no sympathy for the SU in the US and the sympathy for the nazis was inexistent .
1. Hardly, as the occupation forces could be formed as static divisions with whatever equipment. Also, the Barbarossa could be launched at any time, mostly likely later, because the colonial exploitation was there for taking. Eg. the whole Africa, etc. Besides, pro-nazi governments could be established.
2. Ok
3. Absolutely wrong. The sheer numbers and Zhukov himself tells us otherwise.
Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.
4. The elimination of the British / Francophone colonial empires and the opening of the markets was a number one diplomatic priority for the US.

They didn't even commit until Churchill gave free way for the redistribution of the world's economy.

5. Such a war would have happened regardless of the victory in the west. Maybe not as early as 1941, but it would have happened. Just read the Mein Kampf please.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10262
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 15 Dec 2019 18:05

1 The occupation of Britain would not be enough, Germany should also have to protect the coasts of Britain and Irelans with an Atlantikwall and as reserve PzD .
3 I know the statement from Zhukov : but when in 1942 LL for the USSR started, Zhukov was out of Moscow : he was only a field commander and military LL was not his business but the business of the Stavka. Zhukov was only a subordinated field commander,while the chief of the Red Army was Chapovnikov .
5 Mein Kampf was only rhetoric,what would have happened after the defeat of Britain was a peaceful coexistence between Germany and the SU . Foster Dulles was also talking about the roll back of communism, but this did not happen,although US had 12 years to do it (1945-1957 ) ,while Germany had not 12 years, even not 1 year. The burden to occupy,protect and exploit the conquered countries outside the USSR would not only prevent Barbarossa,but would even bankrupt Germany .Before 1953 .
Germany was not strong enough to dominate Europe and even if it could invade and defeat the SU, the occupation and exploitation of it would only accelerate the ruin of Germany .
In 1948 Stalin could do nothing against the secession of Yugoslavia,and in 1956 the SU lost its control over Poland and Hungary : you will agree with me that Hungary of Kadar was a paradise compared to Hungary of Rakosi .De facto 20 year after the Hungarian revolt,Hungary had become a capitalist country and had ceased to be communist and the Soviets could also not expect any support from Romania: Ceausescu refused to join the intervention in CZ in 1968.And let's not talk about Poland : in 1956 Poland demanded the withdrawal of the Soviet advisers and the SU could do nothing else than to obey .
The Soviets had already lost their domination of Eastern Europe, Germany that was much weaker,would do worse .

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”