At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Cult Icon » 02 Dec 2019 10:24

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
06 Nov 2019 18:57
People often claim this, but I have yet to see cites of specific results from Germany's medium bombers that meaningfully impacted any battle. Even the Stukas were not that effective. The over 1,000 sorties against Sedan on May 13 generated something like 50 French casualties.

Airpower was greatly overrated in the early years of the war. It was a different story with the US army air force later in the war because we possessed far superior planes, and many more of them, than what the Germans had in 1940 and 1941.

Maybe it's due to ignorance of tactics/operational levels rather than historical reality? You constantly cite very superficial books like Tooze , Citno, Stahel. Sedan. Sounds like a trope from the "Blitzkrieg legend". The irony is that you shoot yourself in the foot! The breakthrough at the Sedan worked...the best purpose of close air support was to facilitate break-throughs. The effectiveness of CAS is clearest on operational/tactic studies on the Eastern Front, something you have ignored.

Actually a big issue with "allied air power" in 1944 from the British OR pov is the lack of cost-effectiveness and capability of the 2TAF (due to the lack of accuracy of some 151,000 Typhoon rockets fired and divided nature of army-air force operations ) and strategic bombers when used in the operational level (once again, lack of accuracy and high cost). German dive bombers and ground attack were pound for pound a lot more effective in the anti-tank and close support role than allied fighter-bombers as they didn't have these issues.

The British OR recognized that the primary value of strategic bombing when used in the operations was not destructive fire but to destroy the combat morale of defending troops, clearing the way for ground forces for an easier breakthrough battle. The casualties taken by dug-in german troops in the 1,000-1,600 +/- carpet bombing in Normandy were not great either in comparison of the results of ground forces- one of them inflicted something like 20 casualties. But most of these bombing plans softened up the combat morale of german troops a great deal. British OR also recognized that the morale effects of air power exceeded that of artillery superiority- even though the latter was far more destructive.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1180
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Yuri » 02 Dec 2019 11:50

Harris: "Nein,Ihr habt kein Chance"
Harris an das deutscheVolk.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 924
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 02 Dec 2019 15:51

Cult Icon wrote:
02 Dec 2019 10:24
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
06 Nov 2019 18:57
People often claim this, but I have yet to see cites of specific results from Germany's medium bombers that meaningfully impacted any battle. Even the Stukas were not that effective. The over 1,000 sorties against Sedan on May 13 generated something like 50 French casualties.

Airpower was greatly overrated in the early years of the war. It was a different story with the US army air force later in the war because we possessed far superior planes, and many more of them, than what the Germans had in 1940 and 1941.

Maybe it's due to ignorance of tactics/operational levels rather than historical reality? You constantly cite very superficial books like Tooze , Citno, Stahel. Sedan. Sounds like a trope from the "Blitzkrieg legend". The irony is that you shoot yourself in the foot! The breakthrough at the Sedan worked...the best purpose of close air support was to facilitate break-throughs. The effectiveness of CAS is clearest on operational/tactic studies on the Eastern Front, something you have ignored.

Actually a big issue with "allied air power" in 1944 from the British OR pov is the lack of cost-effectiveness and capability of the 2TAF (due to the lack of accuracy of some 151,000 Typhoon rockets fired and divided nature of army-air force operations ) and strategic bombers when used in the operational level (once again, lack of accuracy and high cost). German dive bombers and ground attack were pound for pound a lot more effective in the anti-tank and close support role than allied fighter-bombers as they didn't have these issues.

The British OR recognized that the primary value of strategic bombing when used in the operations was not destructive fire but to destroy the combat morale of defending troops, clearing the way for ground forces for an easier breakthrough battle. The casualties taken by dug-in german troops in the 1,000-1,600 +/- carpet bombing in Normandy were not great either in comparison of the results of ground forces- one of them inflicted something like 20 casualties. But most of these bombing plans softened up the combat morale of german troops a great deal. British OR also recognized that the morale effects of air power exceeded that of artillery superiority- even though the latter was far more destructive.
All very true but it is strange you would be ignoring the moral effect of the allied fighter bombers in 1944 . They did inhibit German movement a lot.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 02 Dec 2019 19:30

I repeat : Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated .What later happened is something else .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 324
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 03 Dec 2019 00:22

ljadw wrote:
02 Dec 2019 19:30
I repeat : Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated .What later happened is something else .
Yeah and Finland was also invincible, because both the Germans and the Soviets attacked it, but they couldn't capture it. :lol:

What makes Germany the strongest armed force in 1941? Logistics? Number of tanks / aircraft / ships? The best officiers corps / NCOs? The best tactics / strategy? The number of Landsers? I am really interested in your opinion.

You are well-read in WW2 history and you can argue rather well ljdaw, but sometimes you just make nonsense points for no apparent reason when it comes to Barbarossa / SU in 1941.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Globalization41 » 03 Dec 2019 04:20

Slovakia was one of Hitler's last peaceful grabs. Maybe the German takeover was the WWII turning point. Prior to that, the British were conducting trade negotiations with German industrialists. But Hitler (using the pretext of ethnic brotherhood) wanted Slovakia for strategic positioning against the Soviet Union.

Globalization41.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 03 Dec 2019 08:29

Peter89 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 00:22
ljadw wrote:
02 Dec 2019 19:30
I repeat : Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated .What later happened is something else .
Yeah and Finland was also invincible, because both the Germans and the Soviets attacked it, but they couldn't capture it. :lol:

What makes Germany the strongest armed force in 1941? Logistics? Number of tanks / aircraft / ships? The best officiers corps / NCOs? The best tactics / strategy? The number of Landsers? I am really interested in your opinion.

You are well-read in WW2 history and you can argue rather well ljdaw, but sometimes you just make nonsense points for no apparent reason when it comes to Barbarossa / SU in 1941.
Finland was twice defeated by the Soviets .
What makes the WM the strongest force in 1941 ? A combination of numbers of tanks, etc .
Britain could not defeat Germany in 1941, neither could do the US .US army ( including air force ) : 1.46, US navy : 280000 . The Red Army was not capable in 1941 to launch a big offensive against Germany , neither could do Britain or the US .. Germany OTOH was capable to launch a big offensive against the SU ,something no other country could do in 1941 .That means that in 1941 Germany was the strongest military power on earth.And if the strongest military power on earth was not capable to defeat the SU, this means that no other country could do this and that the SU was invincible .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 03 Dec 2019 09:46

Peter89 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 00:22
ljadw wrote:
02 Dec 2019 19:30
I repeat : Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated .What later happened is something else .
Yeah and Finland was also invincible, because both the Germans and the Soviets attacked it, but they couldn't capture it. :lol:

What makes Germany the strongest armed force in 1941? Logistics? Number of tanks / aircraft / ships? The best officiers corps / NCOs? The best tactics / strategy? The number of Landsers? I am really interested in your opinion.

You are well-read in WW2 history and you can argue rather well ljdaw, but sometimes you just make nonsense points for no apparent reason when it comes to Barbarossa / SU in 1941.
Takes Operation Unthinkable in 1945 : what would be the chances of the Wallies to do in a conventional war what the Germans failed to do in 1941 = to advance to the Volga ?
IMO the Wallies would have even less chance than the Germans, as the number one factor which prevented the Germans to go to the Volga in 1941, was still present in 1945 and would also prevent the Wallies to go to the Volga .
And this factor was : distance (translation : time ) and the distance would be greater for the Wallies than for the Germans .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 324
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 03 Dec 2019 11:40

ljadw wrote:
03 Dec 2019 08:29
Peter89 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 00:22
ljadw wrote:
02 Dec 2019 19:30
I repeat : Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated .What later happened is something else .
Yeah and Finland was also invincible, because both the Germans and the Soviets attacked it, but they couldn't capture it. :lol:

What makes Germany the strongest armed force in 1941? Logistics? Number of tanks / aircraft / ships? The best officiers corps / NCOs? The best tactics / strategy? The number of Landsers? I am really interested in your opinion.

You are well-read in WW2 history and you can argue rather well ljdaw, but sometimes you just make nonsense points for no apparent reason when it comes to Barbarossa / SU in 1941.
Finland was twice defeated by the Soviets .
What makes the WM the strongest force in 1941 ? A combination of numbers of tanks, etc .
Britain could not defeat Germany in 1941, neither could do the US .US army ( including air force ) : 1.46, US navy : 280000 . The Red Army was not capable in 1941 to launch a big offensive against Germany , neither could do Britain or the US .. Germany OTOH was capable to launch a big offensive against the SU ,something no other country could do in 1941 .That means that in 1941 Germany was the strongest military power on earth.And if the strongest military power on earth was not capable to defeat the SU, this means that no other country could do this and that the SU was invincible .
Okay, but the Germans couldn't defeat Australia either. Or Chile. They couldn't even defeat the Azores. You might say they didn't try, but they couldn't occupy Syria or Iraq either, where they actually intervened.

You might say that they didn't use their full force, but they didn't use their full force on the SU either.

By your definition, a lot of countries were invincible.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 324
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 03 Dec 2019 12:04

ljadw wrote:
03 Dec 2019 09:46
Peter89 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 00:22
ljadw wrote:
02 Dec 2019 19:30
I repeat : Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated .What later happened is something else .
Yeah and Finland was also invincible, because both the Germans and the Soviets attacked it, but they couldn't capture it. :lol:

What makes Germany the strongest armed force in 1941? Logistics? Number of tanks / aircraft / ships? The best officiers corps / NCOs? The best tactics / strategy? The number of Landsers? I am really interested in your opinion.

You are well-read in WW2 history and you can argue rather well ljdaw, but sometimes you just make nonsense points for no apparent reason when it comes to Barbarossa / SU in 1941.
Takes Operation Unthinkable in 1945 : what would be the chances of the Wallies to do in a conventional war what the Germans failed to do in 1941 = to advance to the Volga ?
IMO the Wallies would have even less chance than the Germans, as the number one factor which prevented the Germans to go to the Volga in 1941, was still present in 1945 and would also prevent the Wallies to go to the Volga .
And this factor was : distance (translation : time ) and the distance would be greater for the Wallies than for the Germans .
Pure lol.

Ljdaw, you just have to look at the numbers, the technology, the economical situation and such. The SU couldn't even wage the war against Germany / Axis successfully without the Wallies' help.

They actually defeated, disintegrated, and alienated the SU without losing a single soldier directly. A thing that the Reich could never do.

Operation Unthinkable never realized because the Wallies were disappointed with the pain / gain ratio. The Soviets knew this so they always played on this. They built up defenses to make their invasion costly. Why would a developed country with limited demographical surplus attack a poor country? It makes no sense. It didn't make any sense for the Germans either, Georg Thomas predicted it correctly.

Distance / time? What? Time was on the side of the Wallies. The Wallies were simply better statesmen than the Nazi leadership, that's all.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Globalization41 » 03 Dec 2019 17:47

[Germany which had the strongest armed forces in 1941 tried but failed to defeat the SU . If Germany failed, no other country could do it . That means that the SU was in 1941 invincible = it could not be defeated.] … The Soviet Union was vulnerable due to its leaders failing to facilitate wealth creation for the masses. The U.S.S.R. eventually failed, but Russia was invincible. The collapse of the Soviet Union from Hitler's invasion would not have defeated Russia. Even if the U.S. had remained neutral most of Russia would have been on the other side of the German-Soviet eventual demarcation line.

Globaliation41.

checkov
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 25 Sep 2011 00:44

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by checkov » 06 Dec 2019 15:14

Jldaw: Well, as an unimportant note I didn't say the T-34 was first met by the German army in October, I said it was first met by Guderians men in October. Who said this? Guderian said that. T-34s certainly did attack German tanks, It was mentioned in several sources how the German tanks (especially lighter 2s and 3s models) could not penetrate its armor but the T-34 would penetrate German armor with an accompanying "swooshing sound that mercifully hid the cries of the crews inside". My entire point here is there would have been fewer advanced Soviet tank types in August (as well as British lend lease if you will kindly remember).

Max Payload: I'm absolutely sure the defense of Moscow and positions in front of it were started immediately in August and not October. Moscow citizens were called out en mass in October when the exact axis of the attack became more evident, that doesn't mean auxiliary troops and the military in general did not immediately start improving defenses in the Moscow region. So by halting the drive Moscow in August was better defensively prepared, I don't see how this can be argued. Also you give examples of Soviet threats here and ongoing battles there which show impressive knowledge but are not convincing to me. These are inconveniences. I am talking of the " Schwerpunkt" the main (or should have been) the primary effort of the entire war in the East should have been a early drive on Moscow. The logistical, communications, population, manufacturing, rail, road, air, governmental, industrial, economical, military, educational and perhaps above all else the cultural heart of Russia. It's fall would have hurt the national morale to an unknown degree as well. Again you (and others) amaze me by saying there would have been no difference in an attack in August than October in terms of the Soviet defenses. Please let me repeat my points on this:
1. Soviet forces had been defeated repeatedly and were reeling backwards in retreat for months. The Germans while suffering heavily were in comparatively better shape and had the initiative.
2. A delay allowed new Soviet forces to be consolidated (and trained) and not fed into battle piece meal.
3. Existing Soviet units (most at least) were sadly equipped and manned, the delay allowed them to be rearmed, reinforced and equipped. Consequently their fighting ability was greatly enhanced by October.
4. Not taking Moscow in August gave Soviet factories and lend lease months to create new weapons and equipment. These didn't exist in August so they couldn't have been used.
5. Guderian's forces were too battle worn and weary to advance on Moscow in August. Yet they then marched 200 miles, fought, marched back 200 miles and fought again.....🤔.

Thank you for reading my opinions.

checkov
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 25 Sep 2011 00:44

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by checkov » 06 Dec 2019 16:38

Yet further arguments to an immediate attack on Moscow in August of 1941.

A. Mainstein was arguably the best general in WW2. Mainstein wasn't even assigned to AGC however the opportunity was so brazenly obvious for the Moscow attack he made a request in August for a change in AGN (north) directive. He suggested to halt all significant drives towards Lenningrad and move a majority of its mobile units South to join Guderians drive (or whatever commander was geographically relevant). Fighting on the defensive only additional supplies could naturally be diverted south.

Consider this please. Here is Mainstein busy to his neck in running a war hundreds of miles away, being constantly pulled one way and another by military necessity. Yet still he sees the natural course of action as a way of winning the war. This he does I believe completely independently of AGC---remember this is 1941. Long distance communications were haphazard in times of peace even.

What does the Little Corporal (Hitler) do after hearing this? Sends three divisions from AGC to AGN. 😂

B. A very good book was written by a John Strawson titled Hitler As Military Commander. It's been a while since I read it (in its entirety) but if I remember his final verdict was while Hitler some success his overall performed was inadequate. To keep a sort of tally Strawson notes a handful of MAJOR blunders Hitler was responsible for. Yep! You guessed it, Hitler's handling of the Summer offensive in 1941 towards Moscow was one of them. Allow me to present to you some of his assertions:
a. The primary goal was to destroy the Red Army in Western Russia and was set out 4 months before Barbarossa (mind you "western" Russia not southern, not northern).
b. Early on in the planning Hitler revealed what was to become the operations greatest failure, that to concentrate force (and where should forces be concentrated? Refer to a.)
c. The "professional" soldiers involved all agreed the best option after Smolensk was Moscow. The prize of Moscow with all its advantages inherent such being a communications hub was actually that it was considered the one target the Red Army would have to defend. In other words we go back to the original primary goal of destroying the Red Army in Western Russia. The Red Army would stay and fight to defend Moscow and thus be destroyed. "a."
d. Hitler disagreed. Saying "only those with completely ossified brains, absorbed in ideas of past centuries" would see "any" advantages in taking the capital. Brauchitschs quiet reply that the only way to destroy the Red Army in Front of Moscow was to actually engage it was "brushed impatiently aside" by Hitler😂.
e. The Kiev operation went forward in October (mind you Max with all of that extra time to prepare) with spectacular success in terms of prisoners taken. However (Jldaw please take notes here) Halder commented it "was the greatest strategic mistake of the campaign".
f. On Oct 2 Bock and AGC finally resumed the advance on Moscow. Initial gains were spectacular with 600,000 Soviets taken prisoner between Vyazma and Bryansk
"In spite of the time the Russians had been given"
"In spite of deteriorating weather"
"Victory, if by victory we mean what the German general staff meant---destruction of Russian armies" was STILL possible.
g. Hitler at this time, incredibly and unbelievably, decided to divide his forces yet again. Von Leeb was to capture Lenningrad, Von Bock was to continue towards Moscow and Von Rundsted was to clear the Black Sea coast. Von Rundsted by the way is said to have openly laughed when he heard the orders from the Dumbkoff Hitler so stupid, unattainable and "unrealistic" they were.
h. "October rains and NEW RUSSIAN ARMIES HAD CLEARLY MADE THE DEFENSES MORE FORMIDABLE (my caps)".
I. " Had the effort been trebeled (I assume by not dividing forces), MOSCOW MUST HAVE FALLEN (my caps) and 'the greatest battle in world history' attained".
g. Instead Hitler "preferred to pursue many objectives simultaneously" , " to reject out of hand advice from profesional soldiers" , "fritter away his resources", "doubled his frontage while trebling the objectives and trisecting forces assigned".

In short Jldaw and Max and others the Red Army not only was beatable but if not for the complete incompetence of Adolph Hitler I hold they would have been defeated in front and around Moscow in the fateful Autumn of '41.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 06 Dec 2019 16:50

Germany could not attack Moscow in September. Germany couldn't even hold Yelnya (the launch point for an attack on Moscow) in September. The forces from AGC that took Kiev were not sufficient for an attack on Moscow - 2nd Panzer Group and 2nd Army. These two forces alone could not take Moscow. 2nd Army was the weakest army in AGC and was needed to cover the southern flank of AGC until Kiev was liquidated. It was the Kiev encirclement that freed up these forces to participate in the attack on Moscow. The Soviets were attacking AGC in September and AGC was on the defense with no reserves to spare, and Bock was even contemplating a withdrawal to a more defensible position. Stalin deployed most of his forces along the Moscow-Smolensk axis and left the northern flank of Kiev exposed - the only reason Kiev fell is because Stalin ignored the advice of Zhukov to strengthen this sector.

Talk of a German attack on Moscow in September is pure fantasy.

checkov
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 25 Sep 2011 00:44

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by checkov » 06 Dec 2019 17:05

That's why I say August, that was a potential reality. Why do you say Guderians Force was the weakest? That is a relative term as AGC was given the strongest panzer forces of the three primary German Army Groups.

Also something I was going to add anyway.
3 divisions were sent north to Leningrad
Guderian took about 15 divisions to Kiev
2nd army was what? 10 divisions

That's 28 divisions diverted from AGC, it wasn't that AGC was too battered to launch an offensive towards Moscow they were too weakened by Hitler's unwise dicpversions of forces. In addition as Manstein pointed out there were available forces in AGN that could have been diverted had they checked their offensive.

The best chance of defeating the SU was to start the offensive in August right after Smolensk. The damage taken in the battle by German units would have been repaid many times by the unprepared state of the Red Army.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”