Germans doomed to failure

You could, and many have, write a book about the mistakes Hitler and Germany made in Russia. I also am in agreement with most of your list. I was, however, proposing a way to win in 1941 for Germany. Points 3 to 5 concern 1942 or later and were begat after Germany was committed to a war of attrition.

 

If not for the Italians, Romanian and Hungarians, who else would have secured the German flanks? Germany certainly did not have enough of her own...

 

Quite correct, they did all they were capable of. They should have been used as line of occupation troops behind the front lines rather than holding the line.

 

In retrospect probably so, however; upto that point these troops never really showed their value (Romanian, Hungarian). I doubt the Germans ever expected them to collapse so quickly, afterall; there swere so many men. The Soviet eventual response with Mars and Uranus too was unthinkable...

 

Germany did know how they were equipped, little heavy artillery, few tanks and weak anti-tank guns. really more like German security/fortess troops. Agreed the russian counter attack was bigger than expected, but even a moderate attack would likely pierce the defensive line of Italian/Hungarian/Romainian troops.

 

I dont know about the Romanian and Hungarain troops but the Italians were completely unprepared to fight in Russia if im correct some still had thier mountain equipment and i dont think italy had weapons that can destroy a t-34.

 

Romanian and Hungarian troops were equipped much like the Italian army.

 

I doubt that point two was a big mistake :the Russian railroads were capable to transport only a limited amount of things;as wintergear was not necessary for the succes of Typhoon,well, wintergear had to wait .

 

Yes, point two was an big mistake! How can anyone send troops into a winter battle without a good equipment? But they made so many of "small" mistakes that they never had a chance to be successful. First was not to look good and long enough onto their maps. They underestimated the supplying problems that such an large country brings up. They said we can take what we find at Russia but had no solution how to deliver what htey´ve found from that place to the next where it was needed. In my opinion was the war in the east lost by the bad made homework in logistics.

 

It was no mistake :the Germans were not planning to send troops in a winterbattle thus there was no urgent need for winter equipment .The whole conception of Barbarossa was that after august,there would be no more battles,the possibility of a wintercampaign was a catastrophe and had to be avoided ,the same foe a battle of Moscow :that would be very bad .
There had to be no winter battle,thus winterequipment was not urgently needed .
About your last point :I disagree ,because your POV is :without bad logistics,the Germans would have won,and,IMHO,that's wrong :it is neglecting the existence of the Red Army .

 

I tend to agree with Ulrich on winter uniforms and equipment. LJAd you are correct that Germany expected that major combat operations would cease by the fall of 1941 due to a collapse of the Soviet government. In theory then Germans would not have to fight in winter in such a case. Still it seems a flawed conjecture not to supply winter gear for troops deployed in Russia.

If all had gone much to plan and the Soviet Government had collapsed in the late summer/early fall of 1941, that would not garruntee that all Russia/Soviet forces would lay down their arms and surrender in an orderly manner. Much of Russia had not yet even seen a German soldier and still possesed the means to resist, so they could easily decided to ignore any order to surrender. The possibility of some form of rump communist state, or even a 'white' government could form in the eastern Ukraine/Ural area.

Factor in attacks by partisans and those who simply didn't get the memo, as well as the need to occupy all the ground not yet captured, and you will still have the German army operating in winter. Simple guard duty and moving about in patrols would mean dealing with severe winter conditions. The German army could not simply return to winter quarters in the Reich.

I have always felt that Germany's greatest asst was their troops. Hitler may have believed that his strategic brillance and indomitable will were responcable for the victories of '39, '40 and '41, but it really due to the men on the sharp end who made it possible. Doing all you can to keep your fighting troops in trim was an absolute need.

 

LJAd, in my opinion it was a mistake. I know you´re right with your opinion that they thought to win the war before winter was coming. But if they had a real good planning they had to include an worst case scenario, and that must include the winter. I think i brought my POV out not so correctly as it should has been. My POV is that they have surely lost the war with their bad logistic beside other problems. Without that, they have had a better base. The Red Army was indeed an fact that they had to count with once they had overcome the first shock and learned how to deal with the Wehrmacht. The point is that you can have a well trained Army, but it isn´t of worth if you left them bad equiped. The long ways from the supplying bases to the front thru areas that were controlled by partisans did their part to the bad situation. That combined with the lack of an "Plan B" was a catastrophy.

Seen your post to late Belasar you said the most of my post!

 

This was a mistake but not a decisive one on the part of the Germans. They could have done significantly better helping equip their allies. Had they after the fall of France given Romania more captured equipment the Romanian army would have been in far better shape than it was. For example, the Romanians already were using French H39 tanks. Had the Germans handed over more of these and other ex-French AFV the Romanians could have fielded not only a decent armored division or two but could have given their infantry a few support tanks as well. The French 25mm and 47mm AT guns along with the ubiquitious 75mm artillery piece could have been distributed to Romanian and Hungarian divisions as well. These would have given them some real antitank defenses. The 47 and 75 are capable guns and could have defeated the T34. Even the 25mm would have been useful against the bulk of Soviet armor through the end of 1942.
Suppling them wth French radios and other communications equipment would have also made a big difference. Since these were of limited value to the Wehrmacht they should have been handed over entirely to Allied states for use.

 

Sounds reasonable, did not the bulk of the captured French equipment end up in the Atlantic Wall and equiping German troops in the west?

 

Hm,to give,after the fall of France,French equipment to Romania,would mean,that after the fall of France,there was already a decision about Barbarossa,it also would mean that the Germans knew that the Romanians needed the French equipment-did they ? Was the achievement of the Romanians without the French equipment that bad ?And,when there was a decision about Barbarossa (december 1940 ?),was there time enough to send the French equipment to the Romanians ?
Btw :after the fall of France,what happened with that French equipment ?Was it storaged in Germany ? Had it disappeared (plundered by the civilians ?I know that a lot of the BEF equipment left behind at Dunkirk,was already plundered by the civilians before the arrival of the Germans .

 

I know that a few french tanks were used in normandy in 44 also some were used in barbarossa becauce the germans had serveral types of tanks in service which strained thier logistics and didnt have the parts to fix them.

 

Romania was already using considerable French equipment in their army. Their other main source was the Czechs. For example, the Romainans were using various Czech afv like the M35 (pz 35t) and 21 ckd tank and, French equipment like the H39 that they purchased in 1939. The point I would make is that once the Romanians were committed to allying with Germany the Germans should have made an effort to supply them equipment to bring their units up to a reasonable standard.
The Romanian armored division barely has 100 afv in it. By giving them just a bit more equipment the Germans could have turned this unit into the equivalent of a panzer division. Giving them Czech and French equipment they already were using would have put little strain on their supply system. Beside that, arming the Romanians to fight better means fewer German troops are necessary to do the job.
The US obviously saw the benefit in this and gave huge amounts of equipment to allies in lieu of raising more of their own units.

 

I am unfamiliar with how many captured French equipment Germany's allies went to war with or were reinforced with so I can not comment on the matter. I am aware, however; of German forces using captured French equipment at least to a degree. Germany herself was constantly short of the needed supplies for the war in East, perhaps she thought that the captured equipment would do more justice in the hands of the Germans? After all, Soviet Russia was all but finished, just one more push and Stalingrad would fall....

The Germans were not the only ones suffering the cold my friend. During the war, the Red Army suffered roughly 750,000 casualties to frost bite, more than half occured in the Winters' of 41-42 and for roughly the same reasons as the Germans had. Sending munitions, equipment, food and men were more important. At the battle of Moscow many Russian front line troops did not have the proper winter gear either and many fell victim to the cold. It was primarily the Siberian reinforcements who came to the besieged city and benefitted from the proper gear. Unfortunatley they did not benefit from proper munitions, many had artillery shells which would not fit in the gun.

Given a choice between the two during such a time, I would pick ammunition over a coat.

 

Germany herself had huge shortages in a number of critical resources. She simply could not afford to reinforce or supply the resources needed to transform the following armies. Hungary and Romanian alone provided nearly 1 million troops to the cause, what was Germany going to provide them with when she herself could nor reinforce half the troops she herself lost in Russia in the first 6 months??

IMO, a comparison between the U.S. and Germany on this matter is not a good one.... Compared to Germany, the U.S. had an infinite amount of resources to which to draw from and supply her allies, Germany did the best she could with the limited resources she had.

 

Hi Sloniksp,

in some cases the Red Army hasn´t any advantage to the Wehrmacht. They also had an lack on gear and guns and on food too. I read reports of some Wehrmacht units where they wrote that they were engaged by Russian troops where only every third soldier had an rifle. And i´ve seen pics of starved russian soldiers in the strength of an Regiment. But the biggest advantage wasn´t the amount of man or the better and more equipment in later years, no it was that they defended their homeland. An often underestimated reason.
And yes, i would choose ammo and an rifle too!