How was it that russia defeated the worlds strongest military at the time ( germany )

This could be a topic that could go on for a long time and I have my own opinion as well as you. However I would love to hear what you guys think.

 

in my opinion, i think it was the man power, and the peoples loyalty to their country in time of war

 

Za posted this link a while ago, have a read of it very interesting.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_2/4.htm

 

Germany's weakness was oil and the logistical situation in Russia was dreadful for the Germans they should never have invaded. Moscow showed the Soviets they could stop the Germans, Stalingrad showed them they could win a big battle and Kursk showed them they could win the war against Germany.

 

Germany was not prepared for a long war and thus the term " strongest military at the time" in my opinion means "the best attack method of the time" instead.

By 1941 Germans were actually downgrading production and considering the huge task ahead
( = barbarossa) it sounds unbelievable.

 

Im impressed!!!! most of the people i speak to about this topic especially americans say that the russians beat the germans only cause of the winter. Me being russian i find this to be a little insulting as would any other russian. Im not sure that a lot of people understand that russians also froze to death in the bitter cold.
Yes, the germans had logistical problems invading russia and not foreseeing the problems Germany would have, however Hitler wasnt going to make the same mistakes that Naplolean made.In the beginning of the war the germans were far more better equiped. They had superior weapons more men, largest and most advanced air force, more food and experience and surprise! The russians had no of these. Also before setting foot on russia they went through Belaruse and Ukraine and got a lot of food and clothes not to mention the 3 million russian prisoners. However the russians didnt give up and just kept coming. The germans after a while however started to loose the will for the fight. They hated russia and new recruits knew that if they went to the easter front it was a death sentence.The russian on the other hand fought for his home and then for revenge. Yes many mistakes and shortcomings occured on both sides, but germany never had a chance of actually conquering russia.In fact Napolean came closer then Hitler did. Thanks for your opinion guys.

 

I'll add my opinion although I'm late to the party.

IMHO the Germans lost due to firstly, the lack of a quick political collapse ( 'kick in the front door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down' or words to that effect ).

Secondly, geography and the weather. Many German accounts refer to the demoralising effect of the sheer vastness of the country.

And yes, the devotion of the average Russian soldier to the 'mother country' allied to a growing hatred of the invader.

I think also that one must credit Russia's rapid technological advances in weaponry. Initially badly-equipped, the Russian military quickly benefited from such formidable items as the PpSh 41, T-34 and Lavochkin La-7.

 

If you get a European map and measure the milage from Germany to the interior cities of Russia you will see how far it was to resupply the troops and they did not have interstates back then. Also the supplies had to go through hostile eastern countries that the Germans over ran earlier with lots of Partisans and also I believe the rail systems had different gauage tracks for different countries.

Germany also had many fronts to resupply and their was politics involved over who got what. The SS usually got the best of everthing and the army got the left overs. I am not sure where the Russian front was in the resupply pecking order but there was France, North Africa, the Mediterrean area, the Baltic areas and the Navy and Air Force. The Russians only had one front until the end of the war when they invaded the northern parts of Japan.

 

The soviet new tech such as the katyusha rockets also played more of a role then they are ussualy given credit for. Keep in mind that they were the first rockets ever used in modern warfare. They were not accurate but their main purpose was for carpet bombing which devistated the german advance.

 

Considering also the fact that the Red Army had some 20,000 tanks by the beginning of op Barbarossa ( even if most were outdated they still could be used as AT eapons due to the 45 mm gun ) there definitely was a problem how to use them. As well as the mentioned 3 million POW´s. later on the difference was that Hitler did not learn from his mistakes but Stalin did.

 

Also BTW, which was used first, the Soviet Katjusha or the German Nebelwerfer??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebelwerfer

 

As for the leaders the turning points were Moscow 41 for Hitler after his generals failed to take Moscow, Hitler took over running the war in the east resulting in some very bad orders like Kursk 43. In Stalin’s case he finally learnt his lesson after the disaster of operation mars in 42. Stalin started to listen to his generals, after the war Stalin was busy rewriting the history books making him look like he saved Russia, shame on him for that.

 

Very interesting thread people

I still dont understand why Hitler wanted to continue with operation Barbarossa after the defeat at Moscow.

I mean what was the point, at the battle of Moscow the Soviets were not far off being destroyed and after the soviets were ready and waiting to respond to any German attack.

 

The germans captured a truck carying katyusha rockets and were amazed by theyre capabilites after their own research and time they created the newbelwerfer. It was created based on the katyusha design and capabilies however it only fired 6 rockets the katyusa would fire double that. The germnas also created the panther tank based on the T-34.

 

by the way Kai-Petri I read ur link good info. However if u ask or read history books from the east they will say that those rockets came from katyusha not developed by german brains out of the blue. But I guess we really cant prove either or lol.

 

and can someone please tell me where I can get an icon.... i know how to get medals but what about a picture for example Richard has Stalin and TA152 had Homer please help.

 

Sloniksp,

you have to have 100 postings first, and for the avatars ( the 5th posting there ), read this :

http://www.ww2forums.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=40;t=000004

 

haha i remember my "rookie" days...

 

Finally I understand!!! thanks for the link Kai!!!


p.s.

very funny fortune.

 

Much that it pains me to say this, the Germans in 1941 were a whisker close to victory and in 1942 they might have done it, with a large helping of hindsight benefit. They didn't manage to pull it off for most of the reasons set down here, but it certainly was not a joy ride. The Soviet command was non existant, they were constantly being swept off their feet, Stalin hadn't learnt anything yet so was running around like a wet hen, the air force was a bad joke, all or almost all of the 20000 tanks were down on malfunction, etc.

Really, if the Germans were unable to win in 1941 it was due to a few errors too many and plenty of time wasting and hesitation.

This is hardly relevant, but in all my wargaming the Barbarossa campaign* the Germans never failed to win before the end of the year, me playing on either side.

* In the good old days of Game Designers Workshop's "Drang Nach Osten" and "Unentschieden", 25 years ago, on a 4m x 2.5m table! I still have the game...