Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 15 Dec 2018 10:47

Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:42
jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:19
Even more funny as Germans were powerless to capture Moscow in 1942, being in 80 km from it. Leningrad... 0 km

(...)

If the Germans could not take Stalingrad, so the attacks on Moscow and Leningrad were doomed too !? But not a fact ...
Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.

From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.

Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1248
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Peter89 » 15 Dec 2018 11:25

jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:47
Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:42
jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:19
Even more funny as Germans were powerless to capture Moscow in 1942, being in 80 km from it. Leningrad... 0 km

(...)

If the Germans could not take Stalingrad, so the attacks on Moscow and Leningrad were doomed too !? But not a fact ...
Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.

From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.

Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Not again, please... there WERE offensive plans, I cited them to you before. Would you like to take a second look? Shall I quote them here, too?
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 15 Dec 2018 18:16

Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2018 11:25
jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:47
Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:42
jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:19
Even more funny as Germans were powerless to capture Moscow in 1942, being in 80 km from it. Leningrad... 0 km

(...)

If the Germans could not take Stalingrad, so the attacks on Moscow and Leningrad were doomed too !? But not a fact ...
Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.

From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.

Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Not again, please... there WERE offensive plans, I cited them to you before. Would you like to take a second look? Shall I quote them here, too?
Of course, quote. The Germans did not want to attack !!! I think so.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stiltzkin » 16 Dec 2018 00:33

But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Top
One of the reasons why a defensive stance is adopted as it is deemed to be necessary, is that offensive action may show no success.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 16 Dec 2018 01:15

jesk wrote:
13 Dec 2018 22:28
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
13 Dec 2018 20:18
Funny how we could talk about "soviet failure during barbarossa" whereas it was a soviet success and a german failure indeed !
Even more funny as Germans were powerless to capture Moscow in 1942, being in 80 km from it. Leningrad... 0 km
They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
Stiltzkin wrote:
15 Dec 2018 04:37
I honestly think that after the failure of Barbarossa, the High Command opted for a long war, that is why they grabbed for resources in the caucasus. They could not knock out the Soviets in a quick strike, but could do so via an (economic) long war, however they were unable to effectively defend Central Europe (and mount a defense in the Atlantic) without sufficient oil. In Case Blue, their Allies gave them a false sense of security - Heeresgruppe Süd overextended and parts of it were annihilated, which consequently threatened all formations in the entire theatre.
Hitler had no choice. He could not do a "long war" as you said. He had no resource to go on a long war.
After the failure of Barbarossa, he tried to take the oil of the Caucasus just to stay alive... but he failed again...

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 16 Dec 2018 01:24

Stiltzkin wrote:
16 Dec 2018 00:33
But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Top
One of the reasons why a defensive stance is adopted as it is deemed to be necessary, is that offensive action may show no success.
Of course, Germans tried to take Leningrad every year of the war... but they failed again and again... Since they failed, their propaganda imagined the myth of the volunteer siege of it...
After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
In 1941 the germans also failed to take Leningrad. The forces they planned to use were destroyed en route between the border and the city... they put the siege before Leningrad far too late etc... they had only disappointment there !

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 16 Dec 2018 06:29

Stiltzkin wrote:
16 Dec 2018 00:33
But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Top
One of the reasons why a defensive stance is adopted as it is deemed to be necessary, is that offensive action may show no success.
This is the simplest logic, but after a successful 1941 with 4 million prisoners, access to the approaches to Moscow and Leningrad, the inability of an army group to advance looks questionable. So if in the group "South" there were 45 German divisions, in the group "Center" 70. In the south attacked, Moscow inability.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 16 Dec 2018 06:45

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
16 Dec 2018 01:15
They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.
Hitler had no choice. He could not do a "long war" as you said. He had no resource to go on a long war.
After the failure of Barbarossa, he tried to take the oil of the Caucasus just to stay alive... but he failed again...
Even after losing Romania, the Germans were able to continue the war. Caucasus oil is a farce as a cause. About reasons for the failure of the offensive, low concentration of forces. In the fall of Tuapse, there was a strong thaw in the fall, the attacks there were wrong. Instead of hitting the rear of Georgia, the Germans attacked north. The map is markedly wrong place of attack.
Of course, Germans tried to take Leningrad every year of the war... but they failed again and again... Since they failed, their propaganda imagined the myth of the volunteer siege of it...
After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
In 1941 the germans also failed to take Leningrad. The forces they planned to use were destroyed en route between the border and the city... they put the siege before Leningrad far too late etc... they had only disappointment there !
If this is not irony. On September 3, 1942, Hitler once again postponed the date of the attack on Leningrad for an indefinite period. Participation in this Russian is doubtful. The Germans repulsed all Soviet attacks without any problems. Of course, the Russians always attacked. The Germans could do it too!

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 16 Dec 2018 07:38

Personally Hitler banned the operation to eliminate the bridgehead. Made by the Führer.

Image

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 16 Dec 2018 09:45

jesk wrote:
16 Dec 2018 06:45
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
16 Dec 2018 01:15
They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.
You say "Hitler wanted to attack" and then "Hitler cancelled the attack".
ancel the attack ?
Because he could not do so... Why ? because the germans suffered heavy losses before arriving in front of Leningrad and during the siege.
Hitler had no choice. He could not do a "long war" as you said. He had no resource to go on a long war.
After the failure of Barbarossa, he tried to take the oil of the Caucasus just to stay alive... but he failed again...
Even after losing Romania, the Germans were able to continue the war.
They were able to continue to lose the war...
Caucasus oil is a farce as a cause. About reasons for the failure of the offensive, low concentration of forces. In the fall of Tuapse, there was a strong thaw in the fall, the attacks there were wrong. Instead of hitting the rear of Georgia, the Germans attacked north. The map is markedly wrong place of attack.
So what ? They just failed.
Of course, Germans tried to take Leningrad every year of the war... but they failed again and again... Since they failed, their propaganda imagined the myth of the volunteer siege of it...
After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
In 1941 the germans also failed to take Leningrad. The forces they planned to use were destroyed en route between the border and the city... they put the siege before Leningrad far too late etc... they had only disappointment there !
If this is not irony.
Why should it be ?
On September 3, 1942, Hitler once again postponed the date of the attack on Leningrad for an indefinite period. Participation in this Russian is doubtful. The Germans repulsed all Soviet attacks without any problems. Of course, the Russians always attacked. The Germans could do it too!
Why Hitler postponed the attack ? Because his forces before Leningrad were heavily diminished by the attacks of the Soviet forces !
That side of history is not told often in western Europe.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by doogal » 16 Dec 2018 15:08

DavidFrankenburg wrote - After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
27 August 1942 Mansteins HQ 11th army moved to the North of Leningrad: While ambitious plans had been made to "raze leningrad to the ground" these were pre empted by the Volkov fronts.
Hitler telephoned Manstein directly 4 September to "restore the situation" p.278 Manstein (Melvin)
"so instead of launching the major assault on Leningrad 11th army was used as a fire brigade to master a local crisis" ibid p,278
you can find mansteins description on p,262,263,264 Lost Victories (Manstein)
While he had intended to mount an operation to "break through the front south of Leningrad" p,264 this never took place. His intention was to close the encirclement properly.

I would say in this instance the soviets pre-empted the German assault so it is tenuous to say he failed as events over took 11th army and then events in the South removed him from that part of the theatre:

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 16 Dec 2018 16:44

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
16 Dec 2018 09:45
jesk wrote:
16 Dec 2018 06:45
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
16 Dec 2018 01:15
They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.
You say "Hitler wanted to attack" and then "Hitler cancelled the attack".
ancel the attack ?
Because he could not do so... Why ? because the germans suffered heavy losses before arriving in front of Leningrad and during the siege.
This is boorish logic. You have to check your conclusions with sources at least a little. In September 1941 there was a cancellation of the planned strike across the Neva, for the complete blockade of Leningrad, in favor of the redistribution of resources for the attack on Tikhvin.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1248
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Peter89 » 16 Dec 2018 16:54

jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 18:16
Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2018 11:25
jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:47
Peter89 wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:42
jesk wrote:
15 Dec 2018 10:19
Even more funny as Germans were powerless to capture Moscow in 1942, being in 80 km from it. Leningrad... 0 km

(...)

If the Germans could not take Stalingrad, so the attacks on Moscow and Leningrad were doomed too !? But not a fact ...
Dude, you came up with the idea that a target's distance per se determines whether they could capture it or not.

From my pov the situation around Leningrad and the Rhzev salient wasnt funny, and the germans tried their best to conquer.

Given the Soviet army dispositionand strength around Rhzev, Moscow could have been 1000km away. The Germans in fact solidified their positions in july 1942.
But this is a falsification of history! The Germans near Leningrad and Rzhev only defended themselves. There were no offensive plans.
Not again, please... there WERE offensive plans, I cited them to you before. Would you like to take a second look? Shall I quote them here, too?
Of course, quote. The Germans did not want to attack !!! I think so.
Very well. I created a new topic for this matter, and you are welcome to continue our discussion there! viewtopic.php?f=76&t=239032
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 16 Dec 2018 17:01

doogal wrote:
16 Dec 2018 15:08
DavidFrankenburg wrote - After Manstein took Sebastopol, in 1942 Hitler sent him to Leningrad with the order to take the city... but he failed.
27 August 1942 Mansteins HQ 11th army moved to the North of Leningrad: While ambitious plans had been made to "raze leningrad to the ground" these were pre empted by the Volkov fronts.
Hitler telephoned Manstein directly 4 September to "restore the situation" p.278 Manstein (Melvin)
"so instead of launching the major assault on Leningrad 11th army was used as a fire brigade to master a local crisis" ibid p,278
you can find mansteins description on p,262,263,264 Lost Victories (Manstein)
While he had intended to mount an operation to "break through the front south of Leningrad" p,264 this never took place. His intention was to close the encirclement properly.

I would say in this instance the soviets pre-empted the German assault so it is tenuous to say he failed as events over took 11th army and then events in the South removed him from that part of the theatre:
In 1942, any attack on Leningrad led to fall of the city. Cut off from the main forces Soviet armies quickly destroyed. The Germans would have shot down elementary defenders of the city. Stalingrad stayed because fresh meat was shipped along the Volga every day.
90% of the operation to seize Leningrad was carried out in 1941. The transfer of Manstein with artillery from Sevastopol is the same farce as the campaign for oil ... Very and very easily in 1942 the Germans could crush the Leningrad front and take the city.

Image

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by doogal » 16 Dec 2018 19:32

jesk wrote - In 1942, any attack on Leningrad led to fall of the city. Cut off from the main forces Soviet armies quickly destroyed. The Germans would have shot down elementary defenders of the city. Stalingrad stayed because fresh meat was shipped along the Volga every day.
90% of the operation to seize Leningrad was carried out in 1941. The transfer of Manstein with artillery from Sevastopol is the same farce as the campaign for oil ... Very and very easily in 1942 the Germans could crush the Leningrad front and take the city.
Please show how they could crush the "Leningrad front!" in 1942(an extra arrow on a map really doesn't explain anything ), then please explain why this course of action wasn't taken:
Then you can explain the reason that the 11th army went to AGN in Aug/Sep 1942 if it was a farce:

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”