Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 24 Sep 2023 13:16

KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 09:51
Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 09:40
You clearly think you know better than a lot of historians and commanders. :lol:
Correct.
You will never understand what totally annihilating enemy forces actually means.
The Soviet forces facing Blau were almost entirely destroyed. The vast majority of the formations of the Stalingrad Front came from the Reserve Armies and the Fronts facing Japan.
Will certainly not happen in your un ambitious scheme. :lol:
My "scheme" is properly calibrated to play to German strengths. I have no idea why you keep calling it "unambitious".
You exhibit your massive ego again but it is based on nothing. :lol:
Your scheme consists of a few very limited offensives which will do far less damage to the red army than you imagine.
You will never understand what totally destroying large enemy formations actually implies. :lol:

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 24 Sep 2023 17:54

Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 13:16
You will never understand what totally destroying large enemy formations actually implies. :lol:
Here are the strength returns of the divisions of the South-Western Front's 9th Army at the end of June, then of July 1942:

Image

Would you reckon that these formations had been effectively destroyed?

per70
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 13 May 2015 21:32
Location: Norway

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by per70 » 24 Sep 2023 18:40

Hah, by your own figures, the 140th Rifle Division still had 122 guys (and maybe a horse or two as well).

“Tis but a scratch” to quote Monty Python’s Black Knight.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 24 Sep 2023 18:46

Peter89 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 11:28
No, it wasn't put to test. The casualties you're quoting repeatedly in your time frame, do not prove that these were casualties the Axis might inflict over and over again. While there is plenty of hints for the contrary.
What are those hints?
I thought we agreed on this. If you advance, let's say 500 km with an army, your army gets weaker
Why would the Germans advance another 500 km into the Soviet Union?

The sensible German strategy would be to remain close to their initial lines by attacking in a south-to-north direction, rather than west-to-east:

Image
There is no evidence that would support this extrapolation. The Soviets suffered defeats, but there is no proof that they were in the process of being attrited down, because these words imply that what happened in May-July would be continued.
Why wouldn't it be continued? The balance of forces at the front was worse for the Soviets at the end of July than it had been at the beginning of May.
This is very TMP-ish.
Thank you.
If the Soviets suffered 1 million men casualties in 3 months
The Soviets suffered far more than 1 million casualties over that period. The figure of (almost) 1 million men is for the net contraction in the force.
it does not mean they would suffer 4 million in 12 months.
Given that a strategy of attrition would incrementally shift the balance of forces toward the Ostheer, I'd expect the rate of Soviet force contraction to be nonlinear and to accelerate over time.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 24 Sep 2023 18:49

per70 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:40
Hah, by your own figures, the 140th Rifle Division still had 122 guys (and maybe a horse or two as well).

“Tis but a scratch” to quote Monty Python’s Black Knight.
Agreed. Clearly, it had only been "pushed aside".

If only the Germans had executed a "deep encirclement", these 122 men - and their horse(s)! - could have been captured, thereby allowing to seize Stalingrad on the march.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Terry Duncan » 24 Sep 2023 21:24

Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 13:16
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 09:51
Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 09:40
You clearly think you know better than a lot of historians and commanders. :lol:
Correct.
You will never understand what totally annihilating enemy forces actually means.
The Soviet forces facing Blau were almost entirely destroyed. The vast majority of the formations of the Stalingrad Front came from the Reserve Armies and the Fronts facing Japan.
Will certainly not happen in your un ambitious scheme. :lol:
My "scheme" is properly calibrated to play to German strengths. I have no idea why you keep calling it "unambitious".
You exhibit your massive ego again but it is based on nothing. :lol:
Your scheme consists of a few very limited offensives which will do far less damage to the red army than you imagine.
You will never understand what totally destroying large enemy formations actually implies. :lol:

Aida1

It would appear that two active warnings are still not encouraging you to not make such personal comments!? Please, try to comply with them before someone more inclined to ban you than I am sees your posts and decides to take such actions! We all get frustrated at times, and we all break rules at some point or other, but usually there is some sort of 'self-censorship' once reprimanded twice in short order. If there is some sort of special treatment that you will respond to please don't hesitate to share this with a member of staff soon?

Terry

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 25 Sep 2023 07:36

Terry Duncan wrote:
24 Sep 2023 21:24
Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 13:16
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 09:51
Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 09:40
You clearly think you know better than a lot of historians and commanders. :lol:
Correct.
You will never understand what totally annihilating enemy forces actually means.
The Soviet forces facing Blau were almost entirely destroyed. The vast majority of the formations of the Stalingrad Front came from the Reserve Armies and the Fronts facing Japan.
Will certainly not happen in your un ambitious scheme. :lol:
My "scheme" is properly calibrated to play to German strengths. I have no idea why you keep calling it "unambitious".
You exhibit your massive ego again but it is based on nothing. :lol:
Your scheme consists of a few very limited offensives which will do far less damage to the red army than you imagine.
You will never understand what totally destroying large enemy formations actually implies. :lol:

Aida1

It would appear that two active warnings are still not encouraging you to not make such personal comments!? Please, try to comply with them before someone more inclined to ban you than I am sees your posts and decides to take such actions! We all get frustrated at times, and we all break rules at some point or other, but usually there is some sort of 'self-censorship' once reprimanded twice in short order. If there is some sort of special treatment that you will respond to please don't hesitate to share this with a member of staff soon?

Terry
Any user reading KDF33 will have the same thoughts about him so not being allowed to express the thought will not bother me. In the future i will refute what he says and leave it there.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 25 Sep 2023 07:42

KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
Peter89 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 11:28
No, it wasn't put to test. The casualties you're quoting repeatedly in your time frame, do not prove that these were casualties the Axis might inflict over and over again. While there is plenty of hints for the contrary.
What are those hints?
I thought we agreed on this. If you advance, let's say 500 km with an army, your army gets weaker
Why would the Germans advance another 500 km into the Soviet Union?

The sensible German strategy would be to remain close to their initial lines by attacking in a south-to-north direction, rather than west-to-east:

Image
There is no evidence that would support this extrapolation. The Soviets suffered defeats, but there is no proof that they were in the process of being attrited down, because these words imply that what happened in May-July would be continued.
Why wouldn't it be continued? The balance of forces at the front was worse for the Soviets at the end of July than it had been at the beginning of May.
This is very TMP-ish.
Thank you.
If the Soviets suffered 1 million men casualties in 3 months
The Soviets suffered far more than 1 million casualties over that period. The figure of (almost) 1 million men is for the net contraction in the force.
it does not mean they would suffer 4 million in 12 months.
Given that a strategy of attrition would incrementally shift the balance of forces toward the Ostheer, I'd expect the rate of Soviet force contraction to be nonlinear and to accelerate over time.
You are making unrealistic assumptions about the casulties the germans would inflict in short advances so your scenario is not going to succeed. Also, you are going to attack the red army strength where they expect you so you will be far less successfull than you assume and lose far more. And the german Army of 1942 could not afford heavy losses given its dire manpower situation.
If there is something that would never work for Germany, it is pure attrition.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 25 Sep 2023 07:50

KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 17:54
Aida1 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 13:16
You will never understand what totally destroying large enemy formations actually implies. :lol:
Here are the strength returns of the divisions of the South-Western Front's 9th Army at the end of June, then of July 1942:

Image

Would you reckon that these formations had been effectively destroyed?
The southwestern front was pushed back and not encircled and totally annihilitated. No map will show you any big pocket around southwestern front. The germans never attempted to put the deep pincers around red army forces like they did in 1941 so you are misrepresenting events. German war diaries show an enemy withdrawing behind rear guards. For example war diary XXXX Pz corps 4.7.1941 :"The hallmark of enemy conduct of combat is fighting with tanks and artillery to gain time for the retreat movements of the battered and thrown together infantry. It remains open wether the enemy wil go over to local counterattacks with tank units." Showcases that the red army conducted a fighting retreat.
You still do not see the difference between surrounding and killing or capturing all the manpower of a large enemy formation and just pushing it back inflicting heavy losses to its combat strength.
Also the reason why you come with nonsensical campaign proposals.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Sep 2023 08:51

Aida1 wrote:
25 Sep 2023 07:36
Any user reading KDF33 will have the same thoughts about him so not being allowed to express the thought will not bother me. In the future i will refute what he says and leave it there.
Thank you, it is always possible to inject some humour when you make a point, but just dont make it personal.

Terry

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Peter89 » 25 Sep 2023 09:02

KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
Peter89 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 11:28
No, it wasn't put to test. The casualties you're quoting repeatedly in your time frame, do not prove that these were casualties the Axis might inflict over and over again. While there is plenty of hints for the contrary.
What are those hints?
Part of the German/Axis successes in the quoted time period did not come from the ability of the German/Axis powers to force their will on the Soviet forces, but from Soviet strategic blunders. The force ratio and the force generation capability on the Eastern front in April 1942 does not explain what happened on the battlefields, and the Soviet military history tries to exculpate the Soviet leadership for these failures. Indeed the Germans scored many victories building on Soviet mistakes, including the elimination of exposed positions in the AGN and AGM sectors, as well as the three great battles (Kerch, Kharkov, Sevastopol) in the AGS sector.

The way I see it, the Soviet leadership got better and better, and historical events tend to confirm this notion. Historical reality confirms the notion that the Soviet leadership had time and space to get better, because they also generated force more swiftly than the Germans and the Axis by the way. The minor Axis forces of 1942 were, unlike their Soviet opponents, irreplaceable; a one-time effort.
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
I thought we agreed on this. If you advance, let's say 500 km with an army, your army gets weaker
Why would the Germans advance another 500 km into the Soviet Union?

The sensible German strategy would be to remain close to their initial lines by attacking in a south-to-north direction, rather than west-to-east:

Image
In your WI map, the forces advance more than 500 km between Belgorod and Tula, for example. On their march to the Svir, they'd travel more than 2000 km. I said it many times, but I'm saying it again: it does make sense - better sense, actually - than the historical advance, for reasons of logistics, air cover, front line length, etc. But, it's still a very long road.
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
There is no evidence that would support this extrapolation. The Soviets suffered defeats, but there is no proof that they were in the process of being attrited down, because these words imply that what happened in May-July would be continued.
Why wouldn't it be continued? The balance of forces at the front was worse for the Soviets at the end of July than it had been at the beginning of May.
You have to come to terms with a simple fact: if you have 1000 operational tanks, by the end of 500 km march, you'll not have 1000 operational tanks. If you do this fighting an enemy twice your numbers, you'll have way less than 1000 operational tanks. The Soviet force disposition in April 1942 was different than the one in early August 1942. You can not prove that your projected attack would break the Soviet positions around the Rhzev bulge, as they had an immense superiority, and Model was very close to throw in the towel. Essentially, the Soviet attack was barely repulsed by stripping the air support from AGN, redirecting reinforcements, including part of the 11th Army to this sector. Were they on the defense, the outcome is unpredictable, but highly disfavours a swift and complete German victory, as you imagine it on your map.
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
This is very TMP-ish.
Thank you.
I didn't mean it as an insult or a compliment either. The line of thought that you can make extrapolations from cherry-picked statistical data, and ignore the context of the said data, was his hallmark.
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
If the Soviets suffered 1 million men casualties in 3 months
The Soviets suffered far more than 1 million casualties over that period. The figure of (almost) 1 million men is for the net contraction in the force.
The contraction in the force which did not occur because of German / Axis contribution only.
KDF33 wrote:
24 Sep 2023 18:46
it does not mean they would suffer 4 million in 12 months.
Given that a strategy of attrition would incrementally shift the balance of forces toward the Ostheer, I'd expect the rate of Soviet force contraction to be nonlinear and to accelerate over time.
In a theoretical scenario, maybe; but in reality, it doesn't work that way. There are other crucial things to be factored in. Supply, equipment, MRO, combat power, terrain, weather, field fortifications, etc. Thus, you can not say that if Germany was able to inflict 1 million contraction of the Soviet forces in 3 months, while losing (let's say) 200.000 troops, then they could repeat it in an ever-faster pace until the Soviets get attrited down. For example, a division could lose 30% of its manpower and rendered ineffective because its combat troops depleted. And such was the state for most divisions in AGN and AGM. About half of the AGS divisions were minor Axis divisions and a great number of troops were "young" troops, contributing way less towards the German offensive strength than the "experienced" troops.

German offensive strength was simply unable to inflict a mortal wound on the RKKA in 1942.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 25 Sep 2023 15:03

Peter89 wrote:
25 Sep 2023 09:02
The Soviet force disposition in April 1942 was different than the one in early August 1942. You can not prove that your projected attack would break the Soviet positions around the Rhzev bulge, as they had an immense superiority, and Model was very close to throw in the towel. Essentially, the Soviet attack was barely repulsed by stripping the air support from AGN, redirecting reinforcements, including part of the 11th Army to this sector. Were they on the defense, the outcome is unpredictable, but highly disfavours a swift and complete German victory, as you imagine it on your map.
Very true. A frontal attack against Red Army strength in the center where the germans were expected to attack will certainly lead to a totally different result than an attack against weakness in the south.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 25 Sep 2023 15:10

Peter89 wrote:
25 Sep 2023 09:02

In a theoretical scenario, maybe; but in reality, it doesn't work that way. There are other crucial things to be factored in. Supply, equipment, MRO, combat power, terrain, weather, field fortifications, etc. Thus, you can not say that if Germany was able to inflict 1 million contraction of the Soviet forces in 3 months, while losing (let's say) 200.000 troops, then they could repeat it in an ever-faster pace until the Soviets get attrited down. For example, a division could lose 30% of its manpower and rendered ineffective because its combat troops depleted. And such was the state for most divisions in AGN and AGM. About half of the AGS divisions were minor Axis divisions and a great number of troops were "young" troops, contributing way less towards the German offensive strength than the "experienced" troops.

German offensive strength was simply unable to inflict a mortal wound on the RKKA in 1942.
Exactly. KDF33 ignores the depleted state of the German Army and constructs an unrealistic scenario where everything goes well for the germans. :roll:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 25 Sep 2023 15:11

Peter89 wrote:
25 Sep 2023 09:02

In a theoretical scenario, maybe; but in reality, it doesn't work that way. There are other crucial things to be factored in. Supply, equipment, MRO, combat power, terrain, weather, field fortifications, etc. Thus, you can not say that if Germany was able to inflict 1 million contraction of the Soviet forces in 3 months, while losing (let's say) 200.000 troops, then they could repeat it in an ever-faster pace until the Soviets get attrited down. For example, a division could lose 30% of its manpower and rendered ineffective because its combat troops depleted. And such was the state for most divisions in AGN and AGM. About half of the AGS divisions were minor Axis divisions and a great number of troops were "young" troops, contributing way less towards the German offensive strength than the "experienced" troops.

German offensive strength was simply unable to inflict a mortal wound on the RKKA in 1942.
Exactly. KDF33 ignores the depleted state of the German Army and constructs an unrealistic scenario where everything goes well for the germans. :roll:

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 25 Sep 2023 18:11

Aida1 wrote:
25 Sep 2023 15:03
A frontal attack against Red Army strength in the center
Where exactly do you see "a frontal attack in the center" on the following map?

Image
where the germans were expected to attack
Blau I (i.e., the attack launched from the Kursk area) didn't surprise the Stavka. On the contrary, they perceived it as the opening phase of a drive on the Moscow area.
an attack against weakness in the south.
What "weakness"?

Return to “What if”