At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1186

Post by jesk » 14 Sep 2019, 21:02

ljadw wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 14:40
checkov wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 13:03
There would have been sufficient supplies and equipment, there were enough munitions/supplies to move German armies hundreds of miles south and gain the huge tactical victory against intact Soviet forces at Kiev. That huge tactical success was an even bigger strategic blunder by Hitler.

So why couldn't the same supplies/fuel/munitions that Army Group Center (? I think) used to advance S towards Kiev and destroy Budennys Soviet Armies have been used to advance towards a totally disorganized and unprepared defense around Moscow in good weather with even less a distance to cover?

Answer: It obviously could have and an early "typhoon" would have had great chances of success.

I will support what Jesk said below about the mud and add that even as important the extra time gave much better preparations for defense at Moscow. Literally thousands of Moscovites worked daily on building tank traps, trenches, bunkers etc. In addition many Soviet units were re-formed and newly formed around Moscow from August to the start of Typhoon. Moscow itself produced significant amounts of weapons (especially aircraft) between August and Typhoon that were not built yet. Finally the now-famous British Lend-Lease armor would not have been available to defend Moscow which the Soviets (temporarily) had little of their own left after the disastrous defeats of the Summer.

https://www.historynet.com/did-russia-r ... ermans.htm
1 Without the defeat of the Soviet forces at Kiev, an advance to Moscow was out of the question : first Kiew, than Moscow
2 There is no proof that in August the Red Army was disorganized and unprepared.
3 What Jesk said is wrong : the mud did not stop the Germans, the Germans were stopped by the REd Army .
4 British LL did not defend Moscow but was used during the failed Soviet winter offensive
5 The fall of Moscow would not result in the collaps of the SU, but would be the result of the collaps of the SU .There was no reason to go to Moscow .
6 From Stahel ( Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East )
P 282 : Combat Readiness of PzGr 3 on July 21 : 42 %
P 417 : Combat readiness of PzGr 3 on August 21 :
7 Pz : 45 %
19 Pz :60 %
20 Pz 49 %
12 Pz : 45 %
P 419 : War Diary of AGC :the armoured units are so battle -weary and worn-out that there can be no question of a mass operative mission until they have been completely replenished and repaired .
24 August : report of general Buhle : combat strength of the infantry divisions in the east was down by 40 % .
As success of Typhoon did not depend on the PzD ,but on the infantry divisions, the conclusion is obvious : Guderian lied, not for the first and not for the last time .
On September 4 ,the combat strength of Guderian's PzGr was down to 25 % .
7 The Ostheer lost 200000 + men in August : the Red Army was stronger than before .
Stahel is lying. The 3rd tank group fought in August. 2nd too. Before looking at the losses of Germans, the Russian armies were ground in the battle of Smolensk.

XXXIX. Armeekorps (mot.) (39.)

Image

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1187

Post by jesk » 14 Sep 2019, 21:05

Duncan_M wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 16:01
So it didn't rain in July and August and September too?
+5 and +30 different effects on the soil. Dries faster in the summer. Yes.


jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1188

Post by jesk » 14 Sep 2019, 21:18

You are not there looking. Hitler is only a problem.

18. Infanterie-Division (mot.)

1941

Image

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 11 Oct 2018, 16:07
Location: USA

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1189

Post by Duncan_M » 15 Sep 2019, 03:32

jesk wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 21:05
Duncan_M wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 16:01
So it didn't rain in July and August and September too?
+5 and +30 different effects on the soil. Dries faster in the summer. Yes.
We're not playing warhammer or D&D, I don't know what the +5 or +30 have to do with muddy roads.

Throughout the summer there were weeks at a time of constant rain were movement came to a crawl. October was bad but FAR from abnormal.

Besides that, complaining about Oct mud and "lost time" has always been right off the checklist for the revisionists who still think the Soviet Union would have somehow collapsed because a dozen heavily weakened panzer and motorized infantry divisions, at the end of a supply train that was 400 km too long, without support from infantry armies, and with few artillery shells and few replacement tanks, could actually manage to take the sprawling metropolis of Moscow and, by some utter and complete miracle, hold it during the expected winter counteroffensive that was definitely going to happen. LOL

Next on that checklist is an appeal to authority by naming a few of the generals that supported driving on Moscow, forgetting that they were all dimwitted about grand strategy and politics, were blatantly ignoring logistical problems and issues involving manpower and equipment replacement, and completely in the dark about actual Soviet strength.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019, 04:55
Location: America

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1190

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 15 Sep 2019, 05:13

philabos wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 04:34
Globalization41 wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 05:18
Very interesting. Suppose Hitler had been bumped off after the fall of Poland. Stalin might still have occupied the Baltic States, while the new German regime might have opposed the Russian takeover. The Soviets would have applied more pressure on the Turkish Straits. … With Hitler gone, Germany might have been more likely to have aided Finland in the Winter War. … … Hitler had put aiding Finland on hold until dealing with France and Britain. The Norway blitz with small forces blocked the British and checked Stalin.

Globalization41.
Actually I was not thinking he would be overthrown.
What if the big mistake was going to war against France in the west in 1940, not the USSR invasion of 1941.
The French had almost no enthusiasm for the war, and were quite happy to sit on the defensive throughout 1939 and into Spring of 1940. I doubt Gamelin would ever have moved against Germany. Not to mention the campaigns against Yugoslavia and Greece.
Once Poland had been conquered I think France would have been quite happy to let Hitler have his way in Eastern Europe. I am not sure he ever has to "deal" with France. As for Britain, it's mightiest sword the RN had very few options in continental Europe.
Of course, none of this means the same mistakes made in 1941 would not have happened anyway.
Two problems:

(1) Germany got a tremendous amount of loot from its western conquests, including petrol, rubber, food, military equipment, and trucks. A good portion of the trucks used in Operation Barbarossa were looted from France and the Low Countries. Without this loot, the Heer would not have been nearly as well equipped in June 1941. And the Royal Navy was extremely effective at its primary job: blockading Germany, making Germany dependent on the Soviet Union for imports of vital raw materials. If Germany doesn't fight France and Britain at all, Stalin is going to know something is up. Germany's aggressive attacks on Britain in the year between France's surrender and Barbarossa successfully deceived Stalin into thinking that Germany would finish off Britain before hitting Russia. If Germany did nothing in the West, Russia would have known an attack was coming.

(2) If Germany invades Russia before hitting France, France will just wait for the opportune time to hit Germany while Germany's army is dying in the east. France isn't going to just let Hitler establish a massive empire in the east. A German OstHeer without French loot will perform even worse than in the OTL, so Germany won't be able to stop a French invasion in 1942 or 1943.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1191

Post by ljadw » 15 Sep 2019, 09:16

jesk wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 21:05
Duncan_M wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 16:01
So it didn't rain in July and August and September too?
+5 and +30 different effects on the soil. Dries faster in the summer. Yes.
General Mud did not stop the Germans,neither did General Winter :after the battle of Viazma,the Germans still advanced,til they were stopped ..by the Red Army .
If the Red Army was defeated ,the Germans would have gone to the AA line . Mud,or no mud .

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1192

Post by jesk » 15 Sep 2019, 20:13

I recall that after Hitler’s desires to strengthen the Kiev direction, on July 23, Halder presented an action plan. 2 tank group and 10 infantry divisions of Army Group Center were transferred to Army Group South. After Kiev, Guderian was supposed to go to the Caucasus. Therefore, in the context of the offensive in August-September, Guderian cannot be in the plans of operations of the Center group. Halder was against the use of 3 tank group near Leningrad. On August 16, Hitler transferred the 39th corps to the North group.
Besides me, the rest are confused in the chronology of events. You should carefully read the diaries of Halder and von Bock. Hitler did write in the order, the attack on Moscow will occur after Army Group Center overcomes supply problems. But this is an occasion; not a reason. Hitler forbade stepping on the Valdai heights. Explaining this with outdated tactics of struggle for heights, etc.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1193

Post by jesk » 15 Sep 2019, 20:23

ljadw wrote:
15 Sep 2019, 09:16
jesk wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 21:05
Duncan_M wrote:
14 Sep 2019, 16:01
So it didn't rain in July and August and September too?
+5 and +30 different effects on the soil. Dries faster in the summer. Yes.
General Mud did not stop the Germans,neither did General Winter :after the battle of Viazma,the Germans still advanced,til they were stopped ..by the Red Army .
If the Red Army was defeated ,the Germans would have gone to the AA line . Mud,or no mud .
On November 15-18, the offensive resumed and until December 6 was slow. Why. I suppose, the soldiers did not have winter clothes and in such conditions it is difficult to show the best fighting qualities. In the snow can quickly freeze to death and this played a role. Hands freeze, legs, head, ears ..

Image

Image

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1194

Post by jesk » 15 Sep 2019, 20:44

Halder's Plan July 23. 2 tank group and 4 army advance in a southeast direction. 2, 9 armies, 3 tank group to Moscow. All this happens at the same time. Kiev and Moscow. Hitler: first Kiev, then Moscow !?

http://militera.lib.ru/db/halder/1941_07.html

Tasks: Army Group “South”: Capture of Ukraine (together with Crimea), later - the lower reaches of the Volga and the Caucasus. The allocation of forces to capture the coast (Romanian, 11th Army) {286}.
Industrial areas: Partisan activities unlikely {287}.
The offensive for the Dnieper - only in the second half of August.
To protect the coast, occupation of the industrial region of the Donetsk basin, flanking cover in the north (given the importance of the Caucasus), reinforcement (4th Army, 2nd Tank Group) is necessary.

Army Group Center: The Hardest Challenge. The enemy is the most powerful here, the best base (means of communication), the actions of the partisans, the problem of Moscow has been created here. How and when the Moscow problem can be resolved depends on political considerations.
Militarily, the solution is presented in the form of an offensive on a wide front with the provision of this offensive through the deep separation of troops on the flanks. For this purpose, it is necessary to use motorized and tank troops, which will cut communications around Moscow. After transferring the troops of the 2nd and 9th armies to the southeast and transferring [175] the Goth’s tank group to the Army Group “North”, there will be insufficient forces {289}.

Since the limited capabilities of the railway network do not allow supplying everything necessary for the 2nd and 9th armies simultaneously to 3 or 5.8, to solve this problem it will be necessary first of all to pull the 9th army to the level of the 3rd tank group in order to free the latter for breakthrough. Then it will be possible to launch an offensive in the center of the front by the forces of two armies between 5 and 10 August.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1195

Post by JAG13 » 15 Sep 2019, 23:19

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
15 Sep 2019, 05:13


Two problems:

(1) Germany got a tremendous amount of loot from its western conquests, including petrol, rubber, food, military equipment, and trucks. A good portion of the trucks used in Operation Barbarossa were looted from France and the Low Countries. Without this loot, the Heer would not have been nearly as well equipped in June 1941. And the Royal Navy was extremely effective at its primary job: blockading Germany, making Germany dependent on the Soviet Union for imports of vital raw materials. If Germany doesn't fight France and Britain at all, Stalin is going to know something is up. Germany's aggressive attacks on Britain in the year between France's surrender and Barbarossa successfully deceived Stalin into thinking that Germany would finish off Britain before hitting Russia. If Germany did nothing in the West, Russia would have known an attack was coming.

(2) If Germany invades Russia before hitting France, France will just wait for the opportune time to hit Germany while Germany's army is dying in the east. France isn't going to just let Hitler establish a massive empire in the east. A German OstHeer without French loot will perform even worse than in the OTL, so Germany won't be able to stop a French invasion in 1942 or 1943.
1. The USSR noticed the German troop concentrations in Poland.

2. Zhukov proposed Stalin to execute a preemptive attack on Germany in early 1941, Stalin refused, no way Hitler starts a two front war.

3. Soviet intelligence was very good, too good in fact, Stalin was informed of every change of the planned Barbarossa date... to the point he stopped believing the intelligence reports.

4. You are right. On the other hand, the only way this turns positive for the Germans is if the UK sues for peace in 1940, Zhukov wouldhave gotten its 1941 preemptive attack and would have been trounced in the process suffering even more damage than IRL.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1196

Post by jesk » 15 Sep 2019, 23:31

As for the German losses in August in defensive battles. Before you is a weak Red Army. But what is she doing. At the front 20 km concentrates 70% of infantry, 90% of artillery and 100% of tanks. On the rest of the front, 100 km, respectively, 30/10/0. And they could do this, gathering almost all their forces into a fist, creating high superiority in forces, inflicting heavy losses on the Germans at the front of 20 km.
But is it possible to draw conclusions about strength of the parties on basis of such a battle, with an extended front? Of course not. Fulfillment of absurd and unnecessary Germans orders of Hitler.
Positional defense can be different. When the density is high and a lot of reserves, there is self-confidence, can make a false retreat and crush the attackers with a blow from the depth. The Germans fought for every meter in pursuit of Hitler's orders: not a step back! A static target is easier to hit. Maneuverable battles deprive the weak side of opportunities. Yes, they fought in August. Stubbornly. But in October, in 2 days, the Germans surrounded a million Russians. Hitler, as usual, ordered to build a narrow and dense encirclement. By loosening the external front.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019, 04:55
Location: America

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1197

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 15 Sep 2019, 23:56

Yes, Soviet intelligence was good and picked up on the invasion, and while the USSR did increase it's mobilization to prepare for war in the spring of 1941, Stalin still believed that Hitler wasn't going to attack him while Britain was still fighting. Germany's extensive efforts against Britain in the year between the Fall of France and Barbarossa convinced Stalin that Germany was intent on killing Britain first.

Stalin also would have turned off the supply of raw materials if Germany didn't fight France and Britain. Without those raw materials, Germany wouldn't have been able to sustain its invasion of the USSR.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1198

Post by JAG13 » 16 Sep 2019, 01:20

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
15 Sep 2019, 23:56
Yes, Soviet intelligence was good and picked up on the invasion, and while the USSR did increase it's mobilization to prepare for war in the spring of 1941, Stalin still believed that Hitler wasn't going to attack him while Britain was still fighting. Germany's extensive efforts against Britain in the year between the Fall of France and Barbarossa convinced Stalin that Germany was intent on killing Britain first.

Stalin also would have turned off the supply of raw materials if Germany didn't fight France and Britain. Without those raw materials, Germany wouldn't have been able to sustain its invasion of the USSR.
Well, it was a two way street, Stalin was getting territorial expansion, machinery and technology transfer through the deal, the war made him more amenable to give Hitler even MORE resources to keep him in a fight that was in the USSR interests. If the fighting stops or never occurs those additional exchanges dont happen.

It was a three way fight and Stalin held all the cards.

And the retarded Wallies almost started a war with him.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1199

Post by ljadw » 16 Sep 2019, 07:47

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
15 Sep 2019, 23:56
Yes, Soviet intelligence was good and picked up on the invasion, and while the USSR did increase it's mobilization to prepare for war in the spring of 1941, Stalin still believed that Hitler wasn't going to attack him while Britain was still fighting. Germany's extensive efforts against Britain in the year between the Fall of France and Barbarossa convinced Stalin that Germany was intent on killing Britain first.

Stalin also would have turned off the supply of raw materials if Germany didn't fight France and Britain. Without those raw materials, Germany wouldn't have been able to sustain its invasion of the USSR.
Soviet Intelligence did not pick up the invasion .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1200

Post by ljadw » 16 Sep 2019, 07:59

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
15 Sep 2019, 23:56
Without those raw materials, Germany wouldn't have been able to sustain its invasion of the USSR.
History proves that this is wrong .

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”