At what point did Germany lose WW2?

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: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 02 Jan 2020 21:39

ljadw wrote:
02 Jan 2020 21:26
Aida1 wrote:
02 Jan 2020 17:11
ljadw wrote:
02 Jan 2020 16:19
Where did I say that the mobile divisions were moving at the speed of the ID ? They did not, unfortunately for them , and because they didn't they did not achieve much .
I said that the mobile forces had to advance/retreat on the speed of the infantrey , Without the protection of the infantry, the mobile forces were helpless .
The forces of AGC ( better a small part of them ) would have easily advanced to Moscow, IF the SU had collapsed .Mud do not stop a victorious army .Only the enemy ( following the German Übermschen, Soviet Untermenschen ) could do it . If the Soviets had collapsed, the Germans could advance with one division, and the mud does not stop one division, but only a big army : the smaller the advancing armies, the faster they can move .
All the rest are excuses from the losers,to not admit that they were stopped by the Soviets : they were never stopped by the mud .
What a load of nonsense. If the mobile divisions moved at the speed of the ID's they would never have encircled anybody which is one the main purposes of deep mobile advances.Mobile divisions are certainly not helpless without the ID's .They have their own infantry. And fast exploitation in depth is rather difficult if you are hampered by mud. Allows the other side to bring up reinforcements and stabilise the front for which it can use rail.So mud was a major inhibiting factor during Typhoon.And was the reason why it had been the intention to finish the campaign before october.
Halder, who knew more than you, said before June 1941 that east of the DD line envelopping operations had no prospect of success . And I believe Halder, not you .The main purpose of deep mobile advances is not to encircle the retreating enemy, but to chase him him .
You clearly do not understand. You should actually overtake the retreating enemy and cut him off. One should certainly have the mobile divisions keep advancing as much as possible while keeping a minimum of forces to cordon off the pocket until infantry arrivés.
You are also misrepresenting whatever Halder said.You have a tendency to be extremely simplistic.

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 02 Jan 2020 21:47

ljadw wrote:
02 Jan 2020 21:35
Aida1 wrote:
02 Jan 2020 20:18
Yuri wrote:
02 Jan 2020 19:45
Aida1 wrote:
02 Jan 2020 16:07
ljadw wrote:
02 Jan 2020 14:28

The bad weather did not prevent the Soviet mobile forces to liberate Kiev . Maybe your opinion is that there were 2 Mud Generals,one who hind ered the German mobile forces and the other one who helped the Soviet mobile forces ? :roll:
Becides, the mobile forces were not decisive . As usual you project the importance of mobile forces today on the importance of mobile forces 78 years ago : the WWII German armies were mainly infantry armies advancing/retreating on the speed of the infantry ,and the speed of the mobile forces was depending on the speed of the infantrey who was protecting them .
You are 'forgetting' :lol: that red army forces were much closer to Kiev in november 1943 than the Germans from Moscow in october 1941. You may always try to explain :lol: how it is possible a mobile unit could move as fast in heavy mud as in dry conditions which is what you pretend to believe.
And German mobile divisons obviously did not move at the speed of the infantry divisions. :lol: They would not have achieved much if they did.The infantry divisions would have to catch up to them later.
But You also forgot a little something. The Kiev operation began on November 3 and three days later on November 6, the Red Army cleared Kiev. Thus, for three days on the mud 65 km. Speed 20 km per day.
But You forgot one more thing. Over the next five days, the Red Army marched another 135 km through the mud and liberated Zhytomyr. At the same time, on the way, she smashed the 25th Panzer division to smithereens. It was a full-fledged fresh Panzer division that had arrived from Sunny France.
In total, in eight days the Red Army went through 190 km of mud. The speed of movement from the bridgehead to Zhitomir is 25 km per day.
From Brest to Smolensk 640 km. Guderian's tank group reached Smolensk on July 16, 1941, 25 days after Guderian attacked the Red Army soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Thus, the average speed of the tank and motorized divisions of Guderian 25 km per day on dry roads.
In November 1943, the Red Army attacked Wehrmacht soldiers who were sitting in well-equipped trenches and the Wehrmacht soldiers were ready to repel the enemy attack. And as already mentioned above, moving the tank corps of Red Army through the mud the same with an average speed of 25 km per day.
In the rain and mud in 1943 it looks like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URc-a9BlauI
In dry weather in August 1941 it looks like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42e8Lex46fQ
In fine infantry weather in may 1945 it looks like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GjVZnUDN-E&t=120s

From myself I will add. A day's March of infantry with a load of 32.5 kg at a normal pace of 30 km per day. This is what I'm telling you-a former infantryman, who every week for two years walk these 30 km and in the mud and dry land and in the snow.
I have no doubt the conditions in october 1941 and those in november 1943 were not the same in more than one aspect.When one looks into the divisional histories of the Panzerdivisions that counterattacked, one sees the mention of mud slowing the movements down during the march up but they were certainly not hampered the same way as in october 1941. If there is a lack of hardened roads, then mobile units will be slowed down a lot directly and indirectly by heavy mud. That is not even a theoretical supposition. One only needs to read the accounts of october 1941 and look at the pics of then.If your point is that weather conditions do not have an effect on the speed of an advance then you are wrong. Even infantry can cover more distance in dry conditions than in heavy mud. Where the advance of Guderian is concerned,this was much quicker in the beginning than when more resistnce was met later so your calculation is very simplistic.Mobile divisions can cover much more km in a day than 25 km duing a exploitation in depth. If we have to believe you , infantry is as quick as vehicles which is impossible.
Where the 25 th Panzerdivision is concerned you have overlooked that it was an inexperienced division thrown into battle prematurely .And its tank component was not there in the initial fighting.
Vehicles are very unsafe and can not operate without the protection of the infantry . It takes only ONE sharp-shooter or a mine to block a vehicle /a tank .Even if the mud slowed the German advance, for which there is no proof,it is also irrelevant .
If the Soviets were defeated, an advance with a few divisions was sufficient, and the mud would not stop a few divisions .
If the Soviets were not defeated, an other Vyazma/Briansk was needed, something for which the Germans had no resources .
You are certainly not a specialist in tactics. :lol: I want to see you stop a tank in the open. :lol: And armoured units do contain infantry,artillery,engineers,etc...
Very funny that you pretend mud had no influence on the german advance. :lol: You may try to explain how a vehicle can move as quick on a dry road and on a road turned into a morass. And obviously, there is lots of documentay eveidence on the slowing down of german units in october 1941.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10260
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 03 Jan 2020 08:33

You never heard of mines ?
It is easy to stop a tank : shoot at the crew .

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 03 Jan 2020 09:20

ljadw wrote:
03 Jan 2020 08:33
You never heard of mines ?
It is easy to stop a tank : shoot at the crew .
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Very simplisitic. Mines can be dealt with and infantry suffers from them too. You have very simplisitic ideas about how infantry deals with a tank. Do some reading on military history. It will do you good. :lol: :lol:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10260
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 03 Jan 2020 12:35

How will a tank deal with mines, or with sharp-shooters who are aiming at every head that sticks out from a tank ?
A tank that is not protected by artillery and by infantry advancing at 2 km per hour,is a sitting duck .

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 03 Jan 2020 12:52

ljadw wrote:
03 Jan 2020 12:35
How will a tank deal with mines, or with sharp-shooters who are aiming at every head that sticks out from a tank ?
A tank that is not protected by artillery and by infantry advancing at 2 km per hour,is a sitting duck .
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You really have never heard of engineers and you imagine too many sharpshooters. Do some reading on mobile advances and you will notice mobile divisions move quicker than you pretend and have their own infantry and mechanised artillery. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10260
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 04 Jan 2020 11:05

In the autumn of 1941 the mechanised infantry and artillery was gone .Besides, they were too vulnerable to operate without the protection of foot infantry .

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 04 Jan 2020 12:25

ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 11:05
In the autumn of 1941 the mechanised infantry and artillery was gone .Besides, they were too vulnerable to operate without the protection of foot infantry .
Ridiculous. Factually utrue You exhibit a complete lack of knowledge.

Latze
Member
Posts: 356
Joined: 08 May 2010 16:55

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Latze » 04 Jan 2020 12:42

ljadw wrote:
03 Jan 2020 08:33
It is easy to stop a tank : shoot at the crew .
Wasn't the basic idea of a tank to have a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire?

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 04 Jan 2020 12:59

Latze wrote:
04 Jan 2020 12:42
ljadw wrote:
03 Jan 2020 08:33
It is easy to stop a tank : shoot at the crew .
Wasn't the basic idea of a tank to have a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire?
Exactly. He forgot that. :lol:He thinks that bullets penetrate armor. :lol:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10260
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 04 Jan 2020 14:06

What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 04 Jan 2020 16:23

ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by corbulo » 04 Jan 2020 18:00

ljadw wrote:
02 Jan 2020 14:20
That any allied victory required a second front is very questionable, because if there was no Overlord in the Summer of 1944, a year later German cities would be nuked,one after another . And even without the nuclear weapon, Germany would lose, as without Overlord, the Soviets would still start on June 22 1944 their offensive Bagration ,and even without Overlord the Ostheer could not expect substantial reinforcements from the Westheer .
Jet power would not stop the Allied air attacks on German cities,to equip the LW with jets would require several years , at least 5 .It would also require much more jet fighters, and if the Germans would have them, the Allies would switch to night attacks .
Extra time could not afford the Germans to strengthen the Atlantic Wall as they had not the resources,neither the manpower .
The longer the war lasted, the less chances were remaining for Germany . That's why Hitler proposed peace after the defeat of Poland, after the defeat of France,that'w why he was thinking on Barbarossa to happen in the Autumn of 1940,because he knew /or thought that the defeat of the SU in 1944 would make more impression than the defeat of the SU in 1941 .If the Wallies had proposed peace after 1941,Hitler would immediately accept, because he knew that he was losing , but of course the Wallies did not propose peace after 1941, because they knew that they were winning .
It was the same in WWI .After September 1914 German chances to win were disappearing ,very quickly .
Do you think the Allies would have used the atomic bomb against other white people...?

I think they needed to land troops on the ground in the West to offset any possible Soviet control of Western Europe

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10260
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 04 Jan 2020 22:02

The atomic bomb was made to be used against the most dangerous enemy, which was Germany .
And, without the landing of US forces,there would be no Soviet control of Western Europe : the Soviets were realist enough to know that they would have the biggest problems to control Eastern Europoe : they had not the means to control more than they occupied in the OTL.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10260
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 04 Jan 2020 22:04

Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23
ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
And, if there was no combat, but the tank had to stop for mechanical problems ? Or someone had to urinate against a tree ?

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”