The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

Lieutenant Richard Wernicke, who flew one of the notorious Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers, recalled how surprised he was along with the other German fliers, by the hail of anti-aircraft fire they faced as they dove down over their targets
Did Ju-87s also take part in raids against Moscow?

Regards,

 

you beat me
I would be surprised that Stuka's were diving down over Moscow,and that any of them was returning .

 

I found a short film on You Tube about a Stuka attack on ......the railway between Moscow and Leningrad ,what's something totally different :IMHO,a Stuka attack on Moscow would be a suicide .

 

Of course, Stukas were used in the East to destroy pin-point targets (like ships or bridges), or when the Germans had total air superiority, which was not the case during air raids against Moscow.

Regards,

 

Hello Chi-Ri,

Not sure of the extended uses of Stuka's in raids over Moscow but Wernicke was certainly around the vecinity. He also lost half his squad in the first two raids so I would suspect the uses of Stukas in the area deminished after running into heavy Soviet anti aircraft fire.

 

Hi,
like elswhere in the East when the Germans sustained high losses in aircraft. Still, IIRC, they even used as obsolete planes as Hs-123s during the Battle for Moscow.

Regards,

 

Obviously, the deciscion by Hitler to divert panzers south to healp army gruo south capture kiev delayed the advance on moscow. However, the are two sides to this, one being that hitler was trying not to make the same mistakes tha napolean made. Napolean captured moscow but did not beat the russian army in the field, and therfore they were able to mount a succesful counter attack and drive him out of the city. Hitler was thinking, not incorrectly, that capturing the capital cityy does not neccessarily mean victory. Second, the encirclement of the red army at kiev yielded the largest number of prisoner in history, some 600 to 700 thousand. hitler was probably considering the natural resources in the ukraine, and believed it vital to the war effort. So it was a gamble either way to captire, or not capture, moscow first. At the time, he didnt want to make mistakes of napolean. Thats my point. (except he did make a mistake about the weather, so theres your irony! no doubt thst was a big mistake, but thats ankther story...)

 

Sorry for the spelling mistakes, its hard to type on an ipad.

 

Stalingrad cost enough equipment to furnish a quarter of the German Army. Materially speaking it was a complete and utter catastophe!

 

Yes, but most of that quipment was obsolete once 1943 rolled around anyway. They hardly had any tracked vehicle, especially tanks but with the exception of the stugIII assault gun, that had anything bigger than 50cm main gun. 1943 sees the production of many more advanced weaponry with 75mm (long barrel) and larger. Some could say it forced the Geermans to upgrade.

 

Thats equipment of all types, right down to cartridges and uniforms.

One must not forget the personell. They had traded their best specialist infantry for Russian peasant soldiers.

And THAT was the most expensive trade off of all. Literally irreplaceable. They lost something else that could not be replaced either.....Their reputation. The ordinary Ivan saw ineptitude at every level of operations, right up to the Leader himself. This psychological aspect of operations on the Eastern Front was never to be the same again.

 

This is very correct. Avoiding Napolean's mistakes was what Hitler was avoiding. However, Hitler failed to see the differences in time. World War II was a war fought with technology, mobility, and logistics. Hitler swayed away form German War theory by not making Moscow a priority and further gave the russians an advantage by constantly shifting his reserves north and south. Moscow was vital for several reasons as mentioned by Bock and Guderian who both insisted that it be taken. 1) It is the center of Russian intelligence, politics, communication, and logistics. Capturing Moscow forces the Russians tgo re-organize all of these structures. 2) It is a huge morale issue and the possibility of capturing or killing Stalin were also possibilities that could immediately have forced a russian surrender. 3) Moscow seperates western russia form the siberians. The Russians recieved most of their CG's and military goods from the US in the east and transported west through the Lend-Lease act. These goods would of never reached the front in time had moscow been taken. 4) Capturing Moscow would split the Russian armies in the north and south allowing the Germans to force the russians into either risk running out of materials to fight the war or forcing them to attack the German lines which favored the Germans. Most people are unaware that even though the soviet union had industrialized by the outbreak of war they were not modernized and it was the import of US goods that allowed Stalin to convert IC fully towards the war. If you need proof look at T-34 productions numbers. The T-34 was introduced in 1940. By 1941 only 400 existed. When the US began extending lend-lease to russia in 1941 T-34 production numbers multiplied greatly because stlain could use more IC to produce them. Things like this made taking Moscow a huge priority, to bock and guderian, the highest. Hitler did not want to make the same mistakes that napolean made, but what he did was the same thing. He tried to defeat the russian army after over extending his lines.

 

Lend Lease heres some numbers from lend lease aid to russia in 1941.

 

Again some one who "thinks" that the L-L was the exclusively work of the US,not of Britain ,and that without L-L;the SU was doomed.
Btw :the Soviets produced in 1941 (when L-L was insignifiant) 6224 tanks,of which 3014 T34,Germany 3399

 

Exactly 3014 T-34's were produced in 1941 compared to only 400 in 1940. Lend Lease for Russia began in March of 1941. Russia moved all factories inland to be safe from invasion and began equipping factories for mass production of military arms. The United States would supply a majority of CG's and other basic military items. Do you really think that Russia would of been able to produce 3000 T-34's in 1941 if it would have had to build some 20-30k other light vehicles and a couple million boots, and couple hundred thousand tons of food for its army?

 

German numbers wane because it was largely a self standing military. German factories had to produce all ranges of materials needed to fight war while the russians did not. The US and Germany are the only 2 self standing armies of the war.

 

Yes.
1)Russia did not move all factories inland to be safe from invasion :this started on 22 june,when the invasion started .
2)L-L(from America ?) starting in march,when the SU was still neutral ?
3)The SU was building 15000 aircraft in 1941

 

What were the factories of conquered Europe producing I wonder and for whom? How about all that slave labor?

Germany was not self standing.

 

The fact that Roosevelt signed in march 1941 the L-L act,is irrelevant for this thread:the original L-L deliveries had as destination the UK and not the SU,the deliveries to the SU started only after 22 june.

 

The US did send to the SU in 1941 182 tanks(much less than Britain) and NO aircraft .
Thus,the US L-L in 1941 to the SU was insignifiant ,this is only logical,as the US had an enormous shortage on war material .