German troops in Russia took a defensive stance

you heard it, what if german troops went on the defensive in russia after tide of war turned against them?

 

If the Germans had been allowed to build a defensive line like Guderian and Manstien wanted, before Kursk and not fighting Kursk at all, would be interesting.

I think the Germans would still have lost; there is almost no way that Germany could win in a battle of attrition with the Russians. There were just too many, and too much. If Spear had been able to up production sooner or in time the location where the American met the Russians might have been farther east but it would still have happened.

 

I agree, Kursk was a waiste of good men and machinery. Even if Zitadelle was successul, the German losses were still irreplaceable and they would still have been driven back.

I agree with Tikilal in saying that a defensive line of some sort would have done more for the Germans then an offensive. But as Manstein said, Germany's fait in the east had been sealed on Feb. 2nd 1943'.......

 

I read in the book, "Ostfront", that Adm. Raeder suggested a defensive line before the Stalingrad fiasco. The reason for the Soviet invasion 'was' living space after all. At least that was explained to the people.

I believe they would have a somewhat success given they were decent to the russian population. That some would feel "liberated" would be a bonus to the Germans.

 

If suppose Germany had not a worry in the world about having to place resources in other theatres of war (France, Norway, Denmark, North Africa, Italy, Greece and the Balkans and solely concentrated on the Eastern Front with all the men and equipment available to it then the Soviets i think could not defeat Germany outright, but on the other hand the Soviet Union is to large to be defeated by Germany alone either, i would see a stalemate occurring, eventually i believe Hitler and Stalin would have to come to an armistice.

Allthough the Soviets could have gone under had Germany and her Allies had thrown everything against the Soviets then the Soviets would have been defeated, but i stress Japan would have to open up a second Asian Front.

 

With th exception of Africa did the Germans not through everything they had available at the Soviet Union? Afterall the countries in Europe which were conquered by Germany DID need some sort of garrison right? Sure you could say that some of the men in France and Norway could have been used, but how many?

Lets say an additional 400,000 men stripped from Africa and Europe and added to barbarossa, might this have been enough to turn the tide?

Roddoss, I am not trying to be a pain, I just want to have an understanding as to how many more men you think that Germany might have needed from its other campaigns or conquered territories in order to accomplish its overall victory in the Soviet Union or to cause a stalemate.


As for an Armisice? Well this was simply an impossibility as Stalin would have never agreed to such a proposal and to suggest such a notion is to simply not understand the man of steel, unless ofcourse we are talking about such a stalemate occuring before the battle of Moscow. Coming to Hitler's defense on the topic, this would not have looked very well for the leader of a superior race which failed to defeat the sub-humans he made out the Russians to be.

 

How much credit do you give an Admrial on land combat?

No unfortunetly or fortunetly as the case may be. The Forces that launched the offensive in the east only represented 60-70% of the German armed forces.

This is also a tricky qustion Even one man can change the outcome of a battle and a battle the war. But 400,000 more men at Moscow could have changed quite alot.

I think that this would also neglect the mind of Hitler as well. No conclusion other than surrender would have been accepted by either nation.

Now had Japan gotten into it that again could have changed the outcome as well.

But all this is offensive talk not defensive.

 

A little more then I'd give Goering. Maybe it was just his opinion about a definsive line, but 250,000 troops of the 6th Army went into Stalingrad. No one made it out.

 

This is in contradiction to what David Glantz states.

"over 80 percent of the Wehrmacht fought on the Easter Front in 1941 and 1942".......

page 9

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

I believe a definition of victory would be helpful here.... Also who is to say that all of the 400,000 men would go to Moscow? Germans were struggling at Leningrad as well.

It seems that we both agree here

yes we seem to have gotten a little of topic.....

 

Goering was an idiot, no question, but then again Hitler liked lisenting ot people that knew less than he did, which in and of itself is a feat.

I have quite a bit of respect for Raeder as an Admrial, I was just comparing that requst to those made by the Generals.

I was only saying that 400,000 men anywhere could have changed things. For either side. what if the Russians had been able to move their reserves up faster... hundreds of thousands of Russians deployed around Smolensk and Moscow might never have approached.

Defense never has won a war. General Robert E Lee knows this better than anyone else I would suppose. Then again the French might too.

 

I agree.
As good as Stalin's generals were finally getting without fear of being shot for being too popular, Manstein was also getting better and better at fighting a mobile defense and counter-strike.

It was suggested that they fall back to river and rail terrain advantages to straighten out the Kursk Salient not by attacking, but by withdrawing. Thus the shorter the line the stronger.

The great thing about some of these new video documentaries is that as more and more Sealed archives are released by all nations, we get to see more new perspectives. My latest series even have Russian interviews with their commanders like Zhukov and Budenny and interviews with our commanders none of my friends have seen before either. It's just rumor since I can't give you dvd # and counter # to confirm, but I believe I've seen even Russian commentary that had the Germans settled into a defensive war rather than Operation Citadel(Kursk 43), they could have stale-mated the front.

I'm sure I recall an interviewed Russian general pointing out that the new German weapons were much better suited to defense and short counter-attacks rather than grand offensives anymore.
Tiger, Panther, Jagdpanzer, SiG, Stuh etc. Unlike the West, the Luftwaffe was still challenging the skies over the Eastern front, and as in the Battle of Britain, you retain alot more pilots downed over your territory and the enemy loses alot more downed over your territory too.

While the Russians had the great new T34/85 coming out which was a much better offensive tank than the heavy Kv85, but both major improvements. The Su85 tank destroyer and 122 assault gun, their 76.2mm at gun was better than the American and the Russian army was a very different creature now than in 1941. More experienced officers were allowed to live by Stalin and it showed. The Il2m Sturmovik might have been too limited in range, but the new La5 fighter was statistically as good as they get. The Russian army had the same problem as the German though, Stalin's personal interference often cost them as much as Hitler's did for the Germans. It was good for us that Zhukov got is way here rather than Stalin.

There's a great novel called 'Citadel', I liked alot. Fictional main characters but based on fact.
More factual related to this topic is "Fighting in Hell" The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front.
I recommend both for reading on this topic.

Also, remember that it was during Citadel(Battle for Kursk), that we landed in Italy. Many believe that had Hitler been able to transfer especially SS divisions(the ones with Tigers and hapless Ferdinands) to Italy a couple of weeks earlier, it could have changed that campaign completely too. And air support as well.

We now know from post-war released archives that that was one of the reasons for the timing of "Husky" the invasion of Sicily as we knew from Bletchley Park Ultra that the Germans had hoarded so much to "Citadel" at the same time.

From everything I've studied, I tend to agree. If the Germans had gone on the defense on the Eastern front instead of 'Citadel'(Kursk Offensive), I believe they would have held and with more divisions available for immediate redeployment, could possibly have ruined the Italian campaign too.

Would they hold the Eastern Front indefinately?
I don't think so, but who knows?
But maybe they could have also reinforced and prevented Finland from surrendering and switching sides too.
Even if it only bought the Germans 6 months or a year, who knows what they might have been able to do or come up with in that time?

Anyone here play the computer game "War in Russia"?

 

No your are not being a pain and in fact good question, if my records are correct the Germans at the time if Kursk had approxamately 100+ divisions serving in other theatres such as France, Norway, Denmark, Low Countries, Balkans, Italy, North Africa, Greece and Crete in fact it may be even more than that, an armistice is not tha as far fetched as it seems, just say Germany as per to my previous statement could have deployed those extra divisions into Russia as well as the Axis commitment then i can see a stalemate.

 

Roddoss,

There are a few problems with these 100+ divisions, the first thing is that since Germany failed to knock off Great Britain out of the war, a lot of these divisions were simply stuck in Europe in hope to prevent an imminent invasion.

But lets say ( since this is a " what if " ) that this was not a problem for Germany and there is no threat of an invasion. The condition of these divisions is also questionable. A good portion of these divisions were not at full strenght in fact some were only at 50%. Also most of these men were fresh out of boot camp or had very little battle experience or were shell shocked troops sent to the west to recover. As ofcourse there were veterans out of the bunch most of the German elite units have been lost on the Eastern front years earlier. The fact that these divisions were also under supplied played a factor as well. These were not the same men that had invaded Russia in 41'....

As for the Russian defense, these were not the same "rag tag" bunch that the Germans had faced in 41' either. These battle hardered veteran troops which were well supplied, were very well led and were well motivated now that they were winning and could taste revenge..... The fact that by this time they were numbering over 5 million helped them as well

By December of 43' the Red Army strength was over 6.2 million with over 500 divisions creating a stalemate just that much more improbable, with an Armistice even less likely..... But then again this is a " what it"

 

Absolutely correct, can't fault you in you assesment, but one thing is that the Soviet Rifle Division make up was no more that 5,000 troops this is vastly different ot the "On Paper" division of the Axis who's numbers per division numbered over 13,000 and some time vastly more than that. And if my statisical survey book of fighting men of WWII then even in April 1945 Germany was still able to field 8 million ground troops (Including troops from the OKM and OKL). I still stand by my senario.

Regards

 

8 million What book is it that you go that from? I would also question the under strength and untrained statements of Sloniksp, he forgets to account for the losses in the Russians gain of experience. The Germans fighting the Russians were loosing fewer men while gaining the same experience if not more.

 

Well then can both agree to disagree

Not at all, since this is a "what if" around the time period of Kursk, my scenerio and numbers reflect the time period as well ( or at least try to ) remember that while the numbers of casualties were enormous on both sides, by August 24th 1943 at the battle of Dnieper, the Soviets began to inflict heavier casualties then they themselves were recieving,( while this can be debatable in skirmeshes ) this was the case of all major engagements till the the end of the war.........

 

I don't understand what point are you trying to make. The Russians had several different TOEs for different levels of manning, including one for that much reduced level, so you could say there paper strengths matched reality. What they did was adapt organisations to real personnel availabilities, otherwise they would end up with decimated rifle units (which were the ones doing most of the dying) while 2nd rank troops (artillery, services) would remain at original level. 2nd rank troops would shed personnel to rifle units to maintain balance within the division.

Those 13,000 men German divisions by that time would be no more than a wish, they could have 20,000 men or any number "paper" divisions while actual figures would not approach that level. See Alex Buchner's "German Infantry Handbook" (Schiffer, 1991) for some actual figures.

Some losses examples from the book.

98th Inf Div, advance fighting near Korosten, Aug.'41: Eleven days of combat cost the div 78 officers and 2300 NCOs and men...

18th Inf Div, western campaign 1940 (6 weeks): 558 dead, 2030 wounded and missing.

198th Inf Div, Barbarossa Jun-July '41: 19 officers and 274 men dead, 38 officers and 1111 wounded. From June 22 to Oct 31 total losses 5096 officers and men, incl. 1034 dead and 438 missing.

5th Inf div, same place and period: dead 48 officers and 1222 NCOs and men; wounded 109 officers, 3268 NCOs and men; missing 1 officer, 161 NCOs and men. Total about 1/3 of the division

And remember the joke: "6 Panzer Army is called that because it has 6 Panzers"!

 

Za Rodinu

The point i am trying to make is this while the Soviets may have had 500+ divisions the combined troops were still inferior to the 300+ divisions that the Germans had, not even to mention German Allies who loosly based their numbers on German division, and yes before you pull me up on this i agree that these numbers are "paper numbers" of "Theoretical TO&E" and i am fully aware what supposed to be on "paper" and what actually is completely different.

But my standpoint is this "what if" the Germans did not have to worry about any threats from Britain "In my senario is out of the war" and could deploy all those divisions that served in other theatres of war and were solely deployed on the Eastern front, i believe that with the deployment of an additional 100+ divisions even if at a 80% compliment that would stop the Soviet Army plus if you include all the Axis Alliance that means the Soviet Army would face an additional 150+ divisions, that would be very hard for any army to overcome.

Regards

 

Sorry Roddoss I just couldnt resist

David Glantz states that by December of 43' the Red Army strength was over 6.2 million with over 500 divisions...... if the rifle divisions consist of only 5000 men as you have proposed, then the math just does not add up. Am I mistaken here?

Ah yes back to the 100 divisions I guess the next question would is "how many of those divisions would be needed to garrison Great Britain and the rest of occupied Europe along with Africa" ? I would take a guess and say at least 40? Then one would ask about the number of divisions which would be needed for reserve?

I cant imagine the number of Axis allies changing much at all......

So now we come to the original question, would an extra 30 to 50 divisions ( my generous estimate ) secure a victory or a stalemate in the East? What might the definition of victory or a stalemate be?

I personally find it difficult for Hitler to even consider an Armistice while he is winning, I find it just as difficult for Stalin to consider an Armistice when he would start winning.....

So going all the way back, I am going to say that while a defensive position for Germany would have been more helpful then their offense at Kursk, the end would have still be inevitable.

But then again, this is the problem with "what if's"