Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe' started by LJAd, Mar 14, 2011.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Roslav/Yelnya,let's not quible (my source mentioned Yelnya).
    But the fact remains,that every one was giving different dates :3 august,15 (my mistake),20 august .
    I have found back my copy of a.Clark,and,on P 130,he is writing :The army group commander and his 2 panzer lieutenants were,indeed,united in their recommendation to advance directly on Moscow,but,under Hitler's cross-examination,certain inconsistencies (I like British euphemisms) cropped up .
    Who would be right ?
    If Guderian's Panzers were withdrawn on 8 august only,I doubt that he would be ready on 15 august .
    There also is the fact of the losses:eek:n 10 august,the Germans had lost 282000 men (without any replacement),and some 900 tanks(with 90 replacements only),and I doubt that the Germans would have 50% of their remaining tanks operational .
    And,if the mobile units would be ready on 20 august (as Hoth was saying),what was the status of the ID?Because,without these,Guderian /Hoth would not go far .
    And,again ,I will post the tank status reports :
    On 4 september,Guderian had 25 % of his tanks operational,why would he have more tanks operational on 15 august ?
    Hoth(with figures of 25 august and 6 september) had 40 % available ,and,why would he have more tanks available on 20 august ?
     
  2. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    And not to forget about 600k russian troops at the flank, what if they counterattack?? How will AGC manage both a drive to Moscow and a defense of its flank from a strong counterattack with as LJAd has shown less than 50 % operational tanks and also shortage of men.

    Kiev was a must not a mistake and it indeed yielded in one of the most impressive victory for Germans....
     
  3. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    I also would like to mention the following
    1)from" Hitler's War" PP86-87:in early august,AGC failed to clear its northern and southern flank rapidly enough to disperse the strong Soviet forces which threatened to become a serious disruptive factor for the continuation of the advance on Moscow............Bu early august,von Bock (the same who,on 3 august, declared to Hitler that the was ready to attack Moscow,LJAd),had clearly recognized that the precondition for any further advance towards Moscow,was the elimination of the enemy on the rear flanks of his army group(von Bock :War Diary :p 240)(that's why I have my objections to A.Clarkand why I have not much faith on what Bock was saying to Hitler,LJAd)........As Soviet and German experts mostly agree,the tying down of the German forces on the inner flanks of AGC and AGSreached such a pitch that neither of both army groups could pursue their more far-reaching aims WITHOUT FIRST JOINTLY REMOVING this threat to their flanks .
    Now,to conclude with the author of Hitler's War(H.Magenheimer):"in the light of the subsequent course of the campaign,it is highly questionable wether there was any chance of success for Halder's plan to advance on Moscow in mid-august against a still unbroken enemy,knowing that the northern and southern flanks of AGC were unprotected ,and without any strategic reserves .(Sources of Magenheimer are:Masson:The German Army P182,and Reinhardt:The Turn before Moscow PP59/60).
    2)The following is from the AHF,and concerning the supply situation of the Ostheer(and especially AGC)
    In november 1941,the following daily trains were needed for normal supplies,without a big offensive,and,I don't think it would be different in august (one train =400 ton supplies
    AGN:20 trains (8000 ton)
    AGC:32(12800)
    AGS:22(8800)
    Monthly:2220 (88800 ton)fior the whole Ostheer
    In september,the number was:2093
    october:1860
    november:1701
    december:1643
    january:1420
    While AGC needed daily 32 trains with12800ton,it got in july 24 trains,august 22.7,september 26
    This is not indicating that an advance in august of AGC would have much success .
     
  4. ptimms

    ptimms Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    98
    I'm very interested in the figures quoted for tank strengths, this business of Guderian being down to 190 tanks or 25% of strength at the begining of September is very different from Jentz Panzertruppen volume 1. They had received a kicking some quite badly but not 75%.

    XXIV Panzerkorps

    3rd Panzer 4/9/41 46 operational tanks, 104 tanks repairable, losses 66 tanks.
    4th Panzer 9/9/41 64 operational tanks, 77 tanks repairable, losses 45 tanks.

    XLVII Panzerkorps

    17th Panzer 10/9/41 operational 51 tanks, repairable 74 tanks, losses 66 tanks.
    18th Panzer 9/9/41 operational 85 tanks, repairable 112 tanks, losses 45 tanks.

    XLVIII Panzerkorps

    9th Panzer 5/9/41 operational 55 tanks,, repairable 65 tanks, losses 25 tanks.

    I make that 300 odd operational with 430ish in repair. If you said that only 25% are in short term repair that gives a tank strength of best part of 400 tanks available.

    that said the types of tanks available is interesting. If you look at what was operational the number of PZIII and IV's is worryingly low.

    Of 3rd Panzers operational tanks 5 were PZ I's and 30 PZII's only 6 were PZIII's and 5 PZIV's!!
    4th Panzer had 8 Pz I's and 21 Pz II's. There were 24 PZII's and 11 PZIV's.
    8th Pz had 12 PZ I's, none of these tanks were command tanks as I've not listed these. 2nd Panzer Armee though stronger than other people suggest had best part of half its strength as PZI's and II's.
     
  5. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    I have (from the AHF) the following:
    3th PD:available for employment:41 :pz2 :30,Pz3 :6,Pz4 :5 =20 % under repair and disabled:157 Pz2:28;Pz3:102;P:27 =80 %
    4th PD:available for employment :49 :pz2:16;Pz3 26;Pz4 :7 =29% under repair and disabled:120 Pz2 :28 Pz3 :79 Pz4 :13 =71 %
    17th PD :available for employment:38:pz2:22;Pz3:14;Pz4 :2 =21 % under repair and disabled:142 Pz2:22 Pz3 :92 Pz4 :28 =79 %
    18th PD:available for employment :62:pz2:15,Pz3 :32;Pz4 15=31 % under repair and disabled :138 Pz2:35 Pz3:82 Pz4 :21 =69 %
    Welcome to the world where 2 sources will,of course,give different figures .
     
  6. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    IMHO,the low number of Pz3 and Pz4 can be explained by the heavy losses of these typas and the low number of replacements :
    for june and july,the losses were :
    Pz 1 :93 (no replacements)
    Pz2:97 (no replacements)
    Pz3:153 (45 replacements)
    Pz3 :(t):140 (rep:27)
    Pz4:96(rep:15)
    for august:
    Pz1:171
    Pz2:104(1)
    Pz3:74
    Pz3(t):183(8)
    Pz4:68
     
  7. ANZAC

    ANZAC Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    20
    Hi MB!
    It was the first book on the Eastern front I'd read & I became fascinated with the enormity of the operations which dwarfed everything else.
    And your right, he was among the first in the West to bring the Eastern front to light, although seen mainly from the German perspective & Erickson &
    Glantz [among others]have since given more overall detail, especially from the Soviet side.

    Think we've been over that but I guess in the end they would have to wait for Hoth, who needed until the 20th before they could all be ready.

    And your probably making a bit too much of the differing dates that they'd be ready, each guy was probably coming up with what he thought would impress
    Hitler, but in the end the 20th would hopefully be the big day only problam was the Corporal didn't agree.

    Roslavl fell to the Panzers on 3rd August, Guderian started to pull his Panzers out as soon as the infantry could be hustled in.
    Guess we'll have to take Guderian at his word, think he'd have a slightly better knowledge of the situation then most.



    ptimms gives some good figures on post 304, [thanks for that pt] but whatever the exact number operational Panzers Guderian had by September 4, it was
    slicing through everything Yeramenko could throw at him as he sped almost 300 miles to Kiev to take part in the surrounding & destruction of 4 Soviet armies
    of 850,000 men, then hardly drawing breath turned around & rushed back to take out 2 more armies at Briansk.

    All in all he was involved in the destruction of almost one million men or 1.3 million if you count Vyazma & must have covered about twice
    the distance of pushing to Moscow when he wanted to in the first place.

    Heck, hate to think what he would have done 'if' he had enough tanks.

    And casualties were brutal as you say the Germans had lost 282,000 men by August and the Soviets 2,817,303 by September.


    This is the old 64,000 dollar question isn't it?
    Guess this will be argued forever.
    Many Germans like Bock, Hoth, Guderian, who were on the spot & others thought it could be done, most [if not all] Russians would natually disagree.
    Probably the majority of authors & historians [including Clark,] say the chances of success were slim, BUT, as long as those Panzers could be kept moving, led by the most formidable tank commander of WW2, perhaps almost, and I repeat, almost, anything could be achieved.

    Here's an interesting view from

    Parameters.......PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 1999
    Dont agree that even 'if' Moscow falls that it means the end of the war, but who knows?
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    And,if one will look at the number of Pz3 and Pz4 available for Barbarossa,the picture will be clear
    Pz3 :965 losses till 30 september:331 replacements(till 30 september) :51 production for july-august-september:484
    Pz3(t):772,losses:385 replacements :36 production :205
    Pz4:439,losses :187,replacements:17 production 128
    you will notice
    1)the difference between losses and replacements
    2)the difference between production and replacements
    3)the difference between production and losses (for the Pz3(t) and the Pz4
    3)
     
  9. ptimms

    ptimms Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    98
    My point was more that 2nd Panzer Army had poor tanks available, what it acheives is pretty amazing. I also think we are looking at the same stats. You are saying 25% of its vehicles were operational and I was looking at number available. a good propotion of those in repair would have soon been back at the front. But I agree that only about 25% were serviceable.
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    I am very curious how many of the tanks would reach Moscow in august (Smolensk-Moscow being 150 miles),maybe 50 %.And,when they are at the suburbs of Moscow:you know what happened with the Pz in september 1939 at Warsaw .A few hundred of tanks would not be capable to capture Moscow :they would need a lot of infantry and artillery,and the encirclment and capture of Moscow would demand time,a lot of time.And,unless we assume total chaos on the Soviet side,it would give the Soviets the opportunity to counter attack .Btw:the big question is :what about the Soviets? We are arguing and giving figures,as,if there was NO Soviet army.The problem always is that there are few ,or no informations available for the Soviets .That's also one of the reasons for my objections to use the statement of Guderian,a.o. that they were ready,as an argument that an attack would have results .If one does not know what would be in store for Guderian,the value of his statement is very dubious .
     
  11. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    What does it even mean?? Was that tank commander a "fairy godmother" who could have done anything:rolleyes::rolleyes: regardless of men and equipment.
     
  12. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    It is questionable that Guderian was the most formidable tankcommander of WWII(although he was convinced to be the most ....:cool:).Whatever,this statement is overestimating
    1)the role of the individual commanders (it is not difficult to replace a general...by an other)
    2)the role of the tanks :a Pzdivision is more than X,Y or Z tanks
    3)the role of the mobile units (yes,I know:it is a sacrilege):let's take the problem of an advance to Moscow in august by AGC:eek:ne can not argue that AGC would be ready,because Guderian and Hoth were ready:without Strauss (2nd A)and Kluge (4thA),G +H would not go far.
    And,the advance of the whole AG would be limited/determined by the advance of the slowest units.Thus:the speed of the Pz would be the speed of the infantry,otherwise,there would be some desagreable surprises(as in june an july)
     
  13. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Parameters:eek:ur friend Hooker (worse than Stolpi:eek:),still repeating a lot of nonsens.
    Ex:eek:nly 1500 Russian tanks were better than the German ones .Wrong,of course,this would mean that only 1500 Russian tanks were better than the 3483 German ones,of which 329 PzI.In other words:the PzI was superior to almost all Russian tanks (dixit Hooker)
     
  14. ptimms

    ptimms Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    98
    Much as I would like to believe only 1500 Russian tanks were better than the Germans it cannot be true. The BT5 and 7 were a match for the PZI or II and in the right conditions they would give a PZIII or IV a fright even the gun armed T26 was capable of penetrating pretty much anything the Germans had.
     
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About Hooker,I am still searching the explanation why a colonel of the US Army can write the following nonsens:in 20 encirclement battles (in 1941),the German Army killed 4 million of Soviet soldiers and captured an other 3.5 million .
    NO ONE will know the number of KIA of the Red Army in 1941.But,we know it can't be 4 million,because the number of Soviet military dead in WWII is some 11 million,3.5 million of POW included,the number of KIA and DOW would thus be 7.5 million,and now, colonel Hooker drily is claiming that 4 million of them were lost in 1941.
    The official Russian casualty figures for 1941 are :4.2 million (dead,wounded and missing),Hooker has 7.5 million,without the wounded,and as we know that for the whole war,the number of wounded was more than the double than the number of dead,than would the Soviet losses in 1941(following the Hooker metodology) be :
    4 million dead
    3.5 million POW
    9 million wounded
    =a total of 16.5 million
    IMHO,nonsens is even an euphemism.
     
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Agreed but a period bomb design is unlikely to be any smaller than that. Given that the Germans thought that the critical mass required was an order of magnitude greater than it was thier initial design(s) would likely have been even larger.
    Modern ICBM's and the weapons they carry are the result of considerable post war advances in science and technology.
    Of course the American scientist that were also responsable for the invention of the ICBM weren't and it took a fair number of years after the end of the war to get them truly functional.
    Or not.

    And this is relevant how?
    Strawnan.
    Incorrect.
    Pot calling kettle.
    You would be well advised to follow your own advice.
     
  17. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Read the thread more carefully this time to understand how its relevant, okay. But, meh I will do your work for you this time.
    Jager said that I claimed that British were unbeatable because of greater numbers which I never claimed in first place, then my point was that I or no one can claim that because historically it was not the case i.e British were numerically inferior to Germans. :)


    No, not in the context.

    What a carefully constructed argument.:rolleyes:

    Do you think I am a Chinese..:rofl::rofl: How many more times you wish to be wrong, there's got to be a limit mate.

    Start making some argument first, rather than preaching.

    Good to see you here too lwd...:D
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I did.
    People make fallacious claims with astounding regularity on these boards. Witness some of Jagers posts. It's still irrelevant.
    In the context you made it yes it was. If it was refering to something that would contra indicate this it certainly wasn't clear.
    You made an assertion. I simply indicated it was false. In particular the quote that the US was unable to defeat China in Korea. But of course that was obvious.
    Not at all what gave you that idea? I may have been influence to some extent by some postings by one "fuser" on another site.
    Not to my knowledge. :)
    Make a questionable comment and it's likely to be challenged. If you can't support it that's enough to discount it. If you preach expect to be preached at in return.
     
  19. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    No its not, may be according to your pov but it doesn't make it a fact. What is irrelvant is discussing about relevance of a statement here.

    Once again, no it wasn't speciallyy when a poster claims that a country is undefeatble "twice" without giving any reasoning behind it..

    Wrong. That statement contained both an assertion and a fact. Did USA defeated china in Korean war??:eek: No one was a clear victor in that conflict.

    Then, you need to provide some basis for why you think certain assertion is wrong, saying incorrect isn't suffice.
    So, how about providing some reasons why you think that my assertion (I will repeat it here again) of a future war (conventional war) between china and usa, most probably in korea with chinease having 5 to 1 superiority, USA is not going to win such a conflict.

    Please provide some arguments..

    Um, when I said another poster is motivated by nationalist pride and you said pot calling kettle, so you know it was kinda automatically implied that you are accusing me of the same, of course you were wrong..

    That will explain a lot of non existence of any argument/constructive statement in your previous post as your motivation was trashing a poster and not debating a post.

    Please do that, I am also telling you to question my comments rather than making one word nonsensical remarks derailing the thread.

    Seems like you are talking to yourself.

    Of course, so I think you didn't felt bad when you were preached in return......even though you had no weight of any argument behind your any preaching.
     
  20. Jager

    Jager Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    3
    dont agree with any of these. but perhaps it shows how little you understand other people's views of this subject.
    1) The most common german uniform did not retain heat like the standard russian. This is demonstrated in a live experiment on colour of world war II the stalingrad episode. German equipment did not function as well as russian equipment in these conditions and for several diff reasons. from design to lack of supplies, to lack of storage availability. This is described by many soldiers from both sides and from all ranks. We can discuss that further if you wish.
    2) No, but Hitlers stand fast orders, his refusal to go on the defensive, and his decisions to switch the objectives of barbarossa not once but 3 times after designing a battle plan to win a quick victory only cost the german advance its momentum that it could not afford, and lastly hitlers ability to commit germany to fighting an iever increasing number of enemies on an ever increasing number of fronts.
    3) No, just no, they could of reached moscow with what they had. However, after the failure of barbarossa and typhoon it was clear a long war was going to be fought and Manstien's idea was the right decision. The only way the Germans would of had a chance in a long war was if they took steps back and allowed the russians to extend themselves. (Hitler refused to step back and tried to continue forward). Despite what you think it is far harder to supply an army of that size nearly 1000 miles away on a huge front that has primitive roads and little storage in an area that was scorched by the russians as they retreated, and was further dampened by bad weather.
    4)No and never one of my points
    5) No but listening to Manstien was the better option.
    6) No. sounds like you know little of other peoples arguments. The Tiger was never meant to be produced in such numbers.
     

Share This Page