A book that does no new research but simply gives a negative spin on what was already known. That it what i learn from the reviews.
At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
He said clearly in Panzer Leader : we should have gone to the French Mediterranean coast and from there to NA .
This is sufficient to conclude that he was not at his place .
This is sufficient to conclude that he was not at his place .
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Yes, I can agree that claiming any kind of "flanking" attacks while 5th GTA, which for the most part attacked a chain of villages, hills and farm held by LSSAH in the middle of IInd SS formation frontally, and was supposed to push them back as a whole, is nonsense.What a load of nonsense. The statement i made was based on the source i gave which is very well researched. So i did not arbiter anything. i quote” It had been planned to breakthrough on the weakest spot and surround the advancing Panzer units.But the Germans did not respect the sowjet scenario and broke through themselves ,advancing on Prochorovka.Now it came to an unwonted effect for the red army, as it was exactly defined in the revised edition of the History of the Great Patriotic war :” The strongest Sowjet grouping attacked the strongest German grouping ,however not in its flank, but frontally (Das Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 DVA 2011 pp 134-135).
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Maybe i should have said 'pound for pound' superior....which they were. Kursk and the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives (and teh lack of a German strategic reserve) was the death knell.Peter89 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2019, 18:16Why do we even discuss this "Soviet inferiority" in 2019?
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Both are not correct :corbulo wrote: ↑30 Dec 2019, 13:19Maybe i should have said 'pound for pound' superior....which they were. Kursk and the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives (and teh lack of a German strategic reserve) was the death knell.Peter89 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2019, 18:16Why do we even discuss this "Soviet inferiority" in 2019?
They were not pound for pound superior ( besides, that is irrelevant )
Kursk was not the death knell : there was never a death knell.The death knell existed already before the war .
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
reviews written by the Guderian lobby .
What Aida is hiding is that there were 6 positive reviews and only 3 critical reviews, thus we can assume that Aida only was looking at the negative reviews.
Last edited by ljadw on 30 Dec 2019, 13:51, edited 1 time in total.
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Seems to me he was not in charge of German strategy but had an operational command so you are wrong again.
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Hmmm. The aim of Kursk was to essentially stabilise the front by shortening it and taking advantage of trapping Soviet forces within it. It was similar in a certain (but reverse) sense of retreating from the Rzhev salient (after seriously mauling Soviet attempts to take it).ljadw wrote: ↑24 Dec 2019, 20:36Totally wrong . The aim of Kursk was to prevent a mass Soviet attack,against which Germany had nothing to oppose, by a preventive attack to eliminate the Soviet mobile forces . What happened is that while Citadel was still happening, the Soviets launched their own attack,with forces that were bigger than those the Germans used for Citadel .Citadel .
Not fot the first time Guderian was talking nonsense .The biggest enemy of Germany was general time ,against which Germany could do nothing . If, as Guderian stupidly was arguing,the mobile German reserves were remaining in the East, who would stop the Allied invasion of Italy ?
At the start of Citadel the Soviets had a superiority of 3/1 in men and tanks ,of 5/1 in artillery and of 4/1 in aircraft .A week after the start of Citadel, the Soviets started Kutuzov with a superiority in manpower of 4/1,tanks 5/1,artillery and aircraft 5/1 .And on August 7 a new Soviet offensive started .
"What happened is that while Citadel was still happening, the Soviets launched their own attack,with forces that were bigger than those the Germans used for Citadel"
I agree. But even with the numerically superior forces, after Kursk, and subsequent Soviet offensives, the Soviets still lost 3 times as many men, and 5 times the number of armoured vehicles. Even during the Soviet offensives of 1944 after the dam had broken in the south, the Soviets were still losing 5,6,7+ times the amount of men.
"Not fot the first time Guderian was talking nonsense .The biggest enemy of Germany was general time ,against which Germany could do nothing . If, as Guderian stupidly was arguing,the mobile German reserves were remaining in the East, who would stop the Allied invasion of Italy ?"
I wasn't really arguing for not moving troops to Italy. Just saying that to continue with attacking the Kursk salient after removing those troops was suicidal at that stage in 1943. The new armour arriving (or due to arrive) in the East (Panthers, Tigers etc) would have ground Soviet offensive to a standstill. Guderian was correct in that respect. General time didnt really matter as long as the Soviets (post Stalingrad set back) were kept back and the Allies did not gain a major foothold in the West. In Italy, the Allies victories were eventually very hard won. If the dam had not broken in the East would the Allies have eventually swept through Italy? Would the landings in Normandy 1944 have worked...?
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Really...? In spite of the Germans attacking a ridiculously well fortified and defended defensive lines and the massive subsequent counteroffensives, the Soviets still lost 3 times as many men and 5 times the armoured vehicles. Even after the dam had broken, during the the Soviets offensives of 1994 they were losing 5,6,7+ times as many men. With Kursk, a third of Soviet tanks were light tanks. In 1943/44 Germany production was at its height and what was was being produced (i.e. Panthers, Tigers) would have ground Soviet offensives to a standstill. Germany just needed breathing space and to replenish forces. I disagree with the death knell before the war, in the sense that if you take things from the 1943 perspective, things could have been very different had Germany just kept the Soviets at bay (which they could have) and reacted better to any Allied attempts to gain a foothold in the West. Obviously easier said than done, but it wasn't impossible either. The Allies had a hell of a job advancing through Italy etcljadw wrote: ↑30 Dec 2019, 13:39Both are not correct :corbulo wrote: ↑30 Dec 2019, 13:19Maybe i should have said 'pound for pound' superior....which they were. Kursk and the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives (and teh lack of a German strategic reserve) was the death knell.Peter89 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2019, 18:16Why do we even discuss this "Soviet inferiority" in 2019?
They were not pound for pound superior ( besides, that is irrelevant )
Kursk was not the death knell : there was never a death knell.The death knell existed already before the war .
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Ridiculous. He has the right to have an opinion.
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?
I disagree with the argument that, because Soviet losses were higher than German losses,the Germans could keep the Soviets at a bay : already before Kursk,the Soviets had enough forces to attack on a lot of points ( something they did ) while the Germans had only forces to try to stop ONE Soviet attack .corbulo wrote: ↑30 Dec 2019, 14:53Really...? In spite of the Germans attacking a ridiculously well fortified and defended defensive lines and the massive subsequent counteroffensives, the Soviets still lost 3 times as many men and 5 times the armoured vehicles. Even after the dam had broken, during the the Soviets offensives of 1994 they were losing 5,6,7+ times as many men. With Kursk, a third of Soviet tanks were light tanks. In 1943/44 Germany production was at its height and what was was being produced (i.e. Panthers, Tigers) would have ground Soviet offensives to a standstill. Germany just needed breathing space and to replenish forces. I disagree with the death knell before the war, in the sense that if you take things from the 1943 perspective, things could have been very different had Germany just kept the Soviets at bay (which they could have) and reacted better to any Allied attempts to gain a foothold in the West. Obviously easier said than done, but it wasn't impossible either. The Allies had a hell of a job advancing through Italy etcljadw wrote: ↑30 Dec 2019, 13:39Both are not correct :corbulo wrote: ↑30 Dec 2019, 13:19Maybe i should have said 'pound for pound' superior....which they were. Kursk and the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives (and teh lack of a German strategic reserve) was the death knell.
They were not pound for pound superior ( besides, that is irrelevant )
Kursk was not the death knell : there was never a death knell.The death knell existed already before the war .
If the Germans kept the Soviets at bay ( which they could not ) they could not keep the Wallies at bay . It was one or the other . The Germans tried to circumvene this dilemma by attacking the Soviet mobile forces first , which ,if it succeeded, would be followed by a transfer of the German mobile divisions to the West .
Bit, this could only succeed if the Soviets had only weak mobile forces, which, we know, they did not have : their forces were that strong that even if Kursk was victorious, it would still be followed by very big Soviet attacks .But, as in Barbarossa, Typhoon, Blau, the Germans convinced themselves that Kursk would succeed because the Soviets were weak , or better, they started from the conviction that the Soviets were weak, as this was the conditio sine qua non for the success of Kursk .
Last point : that a third of Soviet tanks at Kursk were light ,is not relevant, as most German tanks were also light,and that light tanks are not inferior to heavy tanks,even if they were, it would not be important, as Kursk was not a battle of tank against tank .