At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1561

Post by ljadw » 30 Dec 2019, 16:12

corbulo wrote:
30 Dec 2019, 14:36
ljadw wrote:
24 Dec 2019, 20:36
corbulo wrote:
24 Dec 2019, 16:47
ljadw wrote:
23 Dec 2019, 21:15
Kursk had only defensive aims ,thus it was a defensive campaign .
Which was unnecessary. They could have stabilised the front and waited and rearmed. Guderian was right. No offensive actions that Summer or even 1943. The Red Army was always inferior to the Wehrmacht so any Soviet offensives would have been back slapped...
Totally 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 .
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).

"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...?
General time was deciding as every day the Germans became weaker and the Wallies and the Soviets became stronger .

checkov
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 25 Sep 2011, 01:44

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1562

Post by checkov » 30 Dec 2019, 17:38

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
19 Dec 2019, 23:20
ljadw wrote:
19 Dec 2019, 22:53
Typhoon was not stopped because of the bad weather, but because it had failed, already before the start of the Soviet win ter offensive / Already on the end of November, Wagner had said : we are at the end of our possibilities . Thus even if Typhoon had succeeded to capture Moscow, the Germans could not go farther .
And if they had captured Moscow in Typhoon, they would have had to give it up, like Rostov. The Germans were actually lucky they didn't capture Moscow, because Hitler would have refused to allow any retreat from the city. Which would have resulted in a Stalingrad level encirclement of German soldiers in the city.




Or the political, logistical , population, communications , cultural , industrial and morale catastrophe of losing Moscow would have caused Stalin to come to the table for peace negotiations (or a military coup).

Once again all of my foes in this argument seem determined to treat Moscow as just another little village. It was the HEART of the SU, its loss would have caused repucussions never seen in the actual history of WW2. IMO.


checkov
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 25 Sep 2011, 01:44

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1563

Post by checkov » 30 Dec 2019, 17:55

Ljadw

Come on! Weather was definitely one of the factors.

You yourself have told me the fall rains and resulting mud was a factor in the failed drive on Moscow, cold weather had some (but I agree less than the fall rains) impact as well. As I've said before the Soviet effective strategy of scorched earth policy denied shelter for attacking axis troops while the retreating defending soviets had significantly more.

"...not stopped because of bad weather."

"

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1564

Post by Cult Icon » 31 Dec 2019, 15:39

The meaning of Kursk was that it badly positioned Axis mobile reserves into a battle of attrition in that summer, so that subsequent Soviet offensives along the Eastern Front could achieve an unprecedented level of success. The tactical superiority of the Pz troops in combat doesn't matter, they were pinned down in attack ops and the Soviets were able to move their troops forward.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1565

Post by Aida1 » 31 Dec 2019, 17:38

Cult Icon wrote:
31 Dec 2019, 15:39
The meaning of Kursk was that it badly positioned Axis mobile reserves into a battle of attrition in that summer, so that subsequent Soviet offensives along the Eastern Front could achieve an unprecedented level of success. The tactical superiority of the Pz troops in combat doesn't matter, they were pinned down in attack ops and the Soviets were able to move their troops forward.
It did not. Without Kursk, German mobile divisions would still have been sent all over the place to counterattack anywhere the red army broke through. There would certainly not have been any question of a grand operational maneuver as Manstein would have loved to do.Kursk was operationally speaking a partial success with temporary effect as red army operational reserves lost heavily( see analysis of the importance of Kursk in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 DVA 2011 pp 169-172).

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1566

Post by Cult Icon » 31 Dec 2019, 18:37

Citadel is also not a good case study for the "general" performance of the armored attacks/counterattacks in 43-45. It was a planned offensive, highly prepared/recon and heavily supported by artillery/ close air support with up to some IIRC 800 sorties per day per attacking Pz Korps. It was also executed by comparatively veteran, well trained and equipped formations, many of which drilled before their commitment.

People mention this because of its fame but its too unusual to be considered a "general case" in the late war era.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1567

Post by Aida1 » 31 Dec 2019, 18:56

Cult Icon wrote:
31 Dec 2019, 18:37
Citadel is also not a good case study for the "general" performance of the armored attacks/counterattacks in 43-45. It was a planned offensive, highly prepared/recon and heavily supported by artillery/ close air support with up to some IIRC 800 sorties per day per attacking Pz Korps. It was also executed by comparatively veteran, well trained and equipped formations, many of which drilled before their commitment.

People mention this because of its fame but its too unusual to be considered a "general case" in the late war era.
This is called nitpicking. 8O You can certainly use it as a case study of an armoured attack against a deep defense with strong armoured reserves behind it. And it was a major German offensive operation with large forces involved on both sides. Reason enough to give it a lot of attention even if some descriptions of it are over the top.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1568

Post by Cult Icon » 01 Jan 2020, 16:08

Ignore list for you

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1569

Post by Aida1 » 01 Jan 2020, 16:35

Cult Icon wrote:
01 Jan 2020, 16:08
Ignore list for you
If you make factually incorrect statements , you wil be contradicted. It seems you are unable to respond . :lol:

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1570

Post by Richard Anderson » 01 Jan 2020, 20:08

Cult Icon wrote:
01 Jan 2020, 16:08
Ignore list for you
:thumbsup:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1571

Post by ljadw » 02 Jan 2020, 09:08

checkov wrote:
30 Dec 2019, 17:55
Ljadw

Come on! Weather was definitely one of the factors.

You yourself have told me the fall rains and resulting mud was a factor in the failed drive on Moscow, cold weather had some (but I agree less than the fall rains) impact as well. As I've said before the Soviet effective strategy of scorched earth policy denied shelter for attacking axis troops while the retreating defending soviets had significantly more.

"...not stopped because of bad weather."

"
Since 70 years the German lobby has repeated that the weather was the reason for the failure of Typhoon, why they remained silent about the fact that Barbarossa failed in the summer .
That scorched earth denied shelter for attacking axis forces is not a serious argument as the Germans were sheltering with the civilians and as they still advanced.
The main reason for the failure of Typhoon was that after the defeats of Vyazma and Briansk,the Soviets were still able to commit new reserves . If they had collapsed after these battles, the bad weather would not have stopped a German advance .
If the bad weather did not prevent the German victories at Briansk/Vyazma, why should it have blocked the exploitation of these victories ?
The Germans knew that a victorious advance to Moscow with 70 divisions was not possible and would not be needed .Briansk and Vyazma had to be deciding, they were not .
Even if the weather has been better ( which it could not be ) the German advance to Moscow would have failed .
General mud is an invention .General mud did not stop the Soviet advance on the front of AGC in the fall of 1943,the Soviets were stopped by the Germans .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1572

Post by ljadw » 02 Jan 2020, 09:12

checkov wrote:
30 Dec 2019, 17:38
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
19 Dec 2019, 23:20
ljadw wrote:
19 Dec 2019, 22:53
Typhoon was not stopped because of the bad weather, but because it had failed, already before the start of the Soviet win ter offensive / Already on the end of November, Wagner had said : we are at the end of our possibilities . Thus even if Typhoon had succeeded to capture Moscow, the Germans could not go farther .
And if they had captured Moscow in Typhoon, they would have had to give it up, like Rostov. The Germans were actually lucky they didn't capture Moscow, because Hitler would have refused to allow any retreat from the city. Which would have resulted in a Stalingrad level encirclement of German soldiers in the city.




Or the political, logistical , population, communications , cultural , industrial and morale catastrophe of losing Moscow would have caused Stalin to come to the table for peace negotiations (or a military coup).

Once again all of my foes in this argument seem determined to treat Moscow as just another little village. It was the HEART of the SU, its loss would have caused repucussions never seen in the actual history of WW2. IMO.
The fall of a capital does not decide the outcome of a war .
Besides, at a certain moment Stalin had decided to leave Moscow ( his train was ready ) and to continue the war from an other HQ. But he cancelled his decision when the militat=ry told him that they could save Moscow .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1573

Post by ljadw » 02 Jan 2020, 09:15

Aida1 wrote:
31 Dec 2019, 17:38
Cult Icon wrote:
31 Dec 2019, 15:39
The meaning of Kursk was that it badly positioned Axis mobile reserves into a battle of attrition in that summer, so that subsequent Soviet offensives along the Eastern Front could achieve an unprecedented level of success. The tactical superiority of the Pz troops in combat doesn't matter, they were pinned down in attack ops and the Soviets were able to move their troops forward.
It did not. Without Kursk, German mobile divisions would still have been sent all over the place to counterattack anywhere the red army broke through. There would certainly not have been any question of a grand operational maneuver as Manstein would have loved to do.Kursk was operationally speaking a partial success with temporary effect as red army operational reserves lost heavily( see analysis of the importance of Kursk in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 DVA 2011 pp 169-172).
1 Not anywhere as the Soviets could attack anywhere, while the Germans had only reserves for a few attacks
2A partial success ?? :lol: ,how long took it before the Soviets recaptured Kiev ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1574

Post by ljadw » 02 Jan 2020, 09:51

Aida1 wrote:
30 Dec 2019, 12:21
ljadw wrote:
29 Dec 2019, 13:26
Russell Hart is very critical about Guderian : Guderian Panzer pioneer or myh maker?
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.
6 positive and 3 critical reviews. :lol: :roll:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#1575

Post by Aida1 » 02 Jan 2020, 10:20

ljadw wrote:
02 Jan 2020, 09:15
Aida1 wrote:
31 Dec 2019, 17:38
Cult Icon wrote:
31 Dec 2019, 15:39
The meaning of Kursk was that it badly positioned Axis mobile reserves into a battle of attrition in that summer, so that subsequent Soviet offensives along the Eastern Front could achieve an unprecedented level of success. The tactical superiority of the Pz troops in combat doesn't matter, they were pinned down in attack ops and the Soviets were able to move their troops forward.
It did not. Without Kursk, German mobile divisions would still have been sent all over the place to counterattack anywhere the red army broke through. There would certainly not have been any question of a grand operational maneuver as Manstein would have loved to do.Kursk was operationally speaking a partial success with temporary effect as red army operational reserves lost heavily( see analysis of the importance of Kursk in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 DVA 2011 pp 169-172).
1 Not anywhere as the Soviets could attack anywhere, while the Germans had only reserves for a few attacks
2A partial success ?? :lol: ,how long took it before the Soviets recaptured Kiev ?
1) Useless nitpicking
2) the partial success mentioned by K H Frieser in DRZW Band 8 is about inflicting heavy losses on red army operational reserves which was the second atm of Zitadelle.

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”