Could the USSR have been defeated?

[unmerged(46715)]

The Americans, in their hubris, did not bother upgunning their tanks and could not even bother using the excellent T-26s until early 1945, even though they were available. To send in armoured formations equiped with these inadequate tanks against Tigers & Panthers shows a callous disregard for human life generally attributed, within the English speaking world, to asiatics.

I think the whole "how many Shermans does it take to kill a Tiger" and so on misses the point of the American strategy.

The question the average GI on the front line would have asked was: what was the ratio of infantry to tanks?

Those Shermans spent very little time getting blasted by Tigers and most of their time blasting German INFANTRY, because German tanks were in short supply. Yes, American tank crews hated life when fighting German tanks, but American infantry were loving the fact they always had tank support. That most certainly WAS humane for the infantry (and there was a whole lot more of them than tankers).

The Shermans were also far more reliable than the Tiger or Panther and got much better gas mileage, so they could be where they were needed. Every tank-to-tank battle NOT fought (because a German tank never showed up) was a tank-to-tank battle WON by the Americans.

Then there's the effect of allied air power on German armor. Rommel wanted his tanks close to the beaches because he thought they'd never make it there otherwise.

Putting it all together, the American strategy, while not flashy, was certainly successful. The possible exception would be in cases like Ardennes when the Germans had the initiative with concentrated tank power and bad weather nullifying the allied air power.

That said, the T-34 was indeed the best tank of the war by a wide margin. It had all the speed, reliablity, cost, and fuel efficiency advantages of the Sherman, and was better than the Panzer IV it squared off against most of the time. And the Soviets were smart enough to just turn them out by the tens of thousands rather than screwing around with new designs the way the Germans did.

 

[unmerged(30793)]

I got interested on this subject and was reading all the posts in order to add something new to this discussion. But halfway through this thread the discussion degenerated into Americans having their usual "we won it and the fact that it were russians fighting is non-important" and others "Russia was an one unbeatable monster" alongside with some mud throwing, name calling and one unspeakable amount of ad hominem attacks.

Comming from a guy whose country was neutral in WWII, a message to you people:

GROW UP.

If you feel you can't reason and discuss in a civilized non-preteen manner don't... just don't. Go out and see the sun or something.


Now that i got this out of my chest, and trying to stay as impartial as possible (something some dudes obviously can't do due to their nationalism and political affiliations), answering to the question at hand: "Could Russia have been defeated?"

In these what if scenarios one must always be careful not to go into the real of wild conjectures. Of course that if Hitler would do everything right and Stalin did everything wrong, Russia could have been forced to one disfavourable peace.

But i'm trying not to reduce the historical changes to a minimum, so can we find a decisive point at which one could say "if this... then Russia is defeated"?

Some have already pointed out the obvious taking of Moscow as a possibility to force peace upon the URSS. Theoreticaly, diverting forces from the mistake that was Stalingrad to a thrust towards the russian capital.

This is evidently the best possibility for the germans and it would be their best chance for a fast victory (which is absolutely fundamental in the way the campaign was planned).

Now another question issues. Is the downfall of Moscow reason enough for a favourable armistice? IMO yes and no. It depends.

In my view there would be to possible results after the fall of moscow (which by the way would not be as easy as some seem to think):

1- The first possibility (favourable to the germans) would that such a thing would make the URSS political system to colapse. This is IMO the only possibility of a fast enough victory for the germans. Some have pointed out that moscow had a strategic importance that could have made a difference. I believe that the strategic importance was rather limited and that if the city was taken the impact would be negligible in terms of the strategic position of forces.

2- The second possibility (favourable to the russians) would be that the fall of moscow would instile further fighting spirit to the russians and that germans, having seen that the conquering of moscow did not brake the enemy would lose heart after the victory euphoria of said conquering.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I can name a few who are better

1. Guderian
2. Manstein
3. Hoth
4. Höppner
5. von Kliest
6. von Küchler
7. Kesselring
8. Rommel
9. Brauschitsch

And what have von Küchler and von Brauchitsh done to deserve a place in this top 10 ?

Oh yeah wait, von Brauchitsch got a heart attack during the russian winter offensive of 1941 but stayed in office for a few more weeks. That is a sign of great generalship.

Besides this, a lot other rubbish has been posted in this thread already. The germans didn't beat the russian in 1941 that is what counts, and yes some people say that is all because the mistakes Hitler makes. Funny, very funny.

Could the germans have defeated the russian no, there are a lot of reasons why they couldn't, but most of it has been posted in this thread.

Read several books that deal with the Russo-German war, not just one book (like I think some people only have read a book by a certain german field marshall).

 

[von_Manstein11]

well actually I have read more then just Lost Victories.

Hitler's War, Heinz Magenheimer

Hitler's Greatest Defeat, Paul Adair

Lost Victories, Erich von Manstein

Zwischen Pflicht and Verweigerung, Feder von Bock

Russia at War, Vladimir Karpov

War on the Eastern front, James Lucas

to name a few

 

[unmerged(23663)]

While it only saw limited service in limited numbers at the very tail end of the war, the IS2 (or in western terms the JS2) was the predecessor of post war Soviet tanks and was far, far superior to the T34 even in its T34-85 form.

You mean the IS-3.

The IS-2 served in significant numbers (2,200 built) from the spring of 44 until the batle of Berlin. The IS-3 started to equip some units from Jan 45 but did not arrive in sufficent numbers to have any real impact during the war.

For those of you who live in Europe there is an IS-3 on display at the Military Museum in Brussels. They don't have a great tank collection but they do have a great collection of post WW2 jet fighters.

Cheers
ATSINTLOTP

 

[unmerged(47690)]

Please answer these questions :
1 . What country had the biggest population at the beggining of WW2 ?
2. How many russian & german soldiers died on eastern front ?
3. Who of these ten german generals and Zhukov had not a single lost battle?
4. Who won on soviet trainings when it was repetion of german invasion (
they about 2 months till war ) ?

 

[blue emu]

Please answer these questions :
1 . What country had the biggest population at the beggining of WW2 ?

China

 

[unmerged(47690)]

No it is not so the biggest population was in Britain ( about 500-600 mln ). Of cause there were only about 50-60 million of people who lived on british islands. But it's almost the same for USSR , about 80-100 mln were russian ( 50 % of population ) and of all people of USSR russian people suffered the greatest losses ( from 100 men born in 1922 , only 3 survived war ). It concerns the proposition that Russia had so many soldiers as it is in HoI and took germans only by numbers. Untill end of 1943 german forces fighting on eastern front had the same quantity as USSR.
Answer other questions please

 

[unmerged(41155)]

Please answer these questions :
3. Who of these ten german generals and Zhukov had not a single lost battle?

Actually Zhukov did lose a battle (large scale operation). Operation Mars in 1942. Here is a link to some information on it:

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

-dave

 

[Friant]

A provocative book on this subject is Hitler's Panzer's East, by R.H.S. Stolfi, who makes the case for sending Guiderian to take Moscow in August '41 and argues that this would have led to the collapse of the Soviets. Scroll down in that Amazon link for a review that gives a good counter-argument to the thesis.

 

[Gabriel Anthony]

Yes, but Nazi Germany couldn't have done it.

 

[unmerged(47690)]

It was an operation with help of which STAVKA diverted germans and main aim was to store as many as possibly german forces far away from Stalingrad.Opposition there was for 14 monthes german army had there 42 divisons ( 1/6 of all eastern forces ). Hitler had to send there 12 divisions which were for Stalingrad + after Zhukov's attack ( which was by the way not so bad as he wrote himself about 1-2 armies and it would be victory ).
But the main idea is that it was soviet desinformation that main attack will be there and Zhukov was the symbol of red army that's why he was sent there
and that's Hitler was so surprised of Stalingrad ( he had to send forces under
Rzhev from Stalingrad & Caucas )
if interesting ( and you know russian ) http://www.libereya.ru/biblus/kozhinov/kozhinov2_content.htm
also you can read memoirs of Zhukov.It wasn't victory but it wasn't a defeat.

 

[unmerged(47690)]

Also question 2 USSR lost 7.8 mln soldiers 2 mln in concetration camps
so it is about 6 mln people died on the battlefield
Germany 4.3 mln (0.6 in GULAG) so 3.7 at the battlefield +
don't know how many but also in eastern front were italian , romanian and
vengrian forces
In WW2 there were 3770290 prisoners of war ( in USSR )
2546242 germans
766901 italians ,romanians , vengerians , finlands
464147 french , belgians , etc.
unfortunately I don't know how many were killed in fight (except for germans)
so we can see that in fight it was about 1:1 so it's nonsense that USSR
had so much people resourses & could just flood germans with dead bodies
( in army were almost all countries men from 18 till 50 )

 

[unmerged(47690)]

Question 4 Zhukov played for germans and won against USSR army ( there
were not only tactical but also strategic trainings ) . So IMHO the answer is
that Germany could win this war . It wasn't ofcause easy but they had pretty good chances ( maybe 50:50 ) and almost realized them . But in HoI it's really a lot easier to win by USSR .

 

[unmerged(17392)]

If there was a concerted effort on either St. Petersburg or Moscow. The focus of the invasion would center on one of these two cities falling. then and only then would attention be given to the next. slowly one by one, take the major cities of the western Soviet Union. the invasion did not seem to have a specific purpose or target...it seemed rather unsure of itself.

If the western allies were not at war with Germany, then there would be nothing to fear in the west and in Italy which would drain the resources for the push in the east. (HA HA)

If there was a freakishly mild winter for the first winter after the invasion. (HA HA)

If the army was properly prepared for a winter campaign, they would have had a little more success during the first winter. (despite the success of the war in the west, the SU is many times greater in size, greater population, and a larger army.....it's gonna take a while to overcome those advantages). did they forget what mom told them as kids....remember to take your jacket!!

If the nazis were able to capitalize on the possibility of being liberators and not oppressors to the minorities of the Soviet Union, ( HA HA)

If overall command of the Ost front was given to the Heer and under the full direction of someone like von Manstein. (HA HA), why would Hitler give up control after he had conqured mainland europe and then let the trained professionals handle the job after that? Keeping Hitler from meddling with the Ost front would have been very advantageous for the army.

If destroying the Red Army became more important than land gains during the second summer offensives which helped lead to the debacle of Stalingrad. Not splitting the forces driving on Stalingrad to also push towards Baku simulatneously (sufficient forces require for both were not present).

If the Soviets received no aid whatsoever from the US/UK. (HA HA)

Germany will be unable to focus attention on another front. all resources and attention needs to be put in bringing Stalin down. Accept help from any source available and win the support of those in conquered lands....they can be alienated after Stalin is dealt with. until then; treat them well, enlist them, and get as many as possible behind your war effort. false promises....carrot and a stick...whatever....there is always time to deal with them after you have won.

i know these are mostly outlandish ideas. there will have to be major changes in place for the invasion to succeed. a lot of luck and favorable weather would be a great help. what if this....what if that....its all speculation.

 

[Long Lance]

...unfortunately I don't know how many were killed in fight (except for germans)
so we can see that in fight it was about 1:1 so it's nonsense that USSR
had so much people resourses & could just flood germans with dead bodies
...

eeeeeehh, do I get you right here?

 

[unmerged(41257)]

eeeeeehh, do I get you right here?

You're not the only one. As I understand the original post, the suggestion, drawing on overall casualty statistics, is that the qualitative gap between Russian and German forces was not as great as certain histories would have it.

I really don't think that it is convincing analysis - to demonstrate that the Russians did not initially rely on overwhelming manpower and latterly rely additionally on overwhelming firepower in order to cover tactical and operational deficiencies in their armed forces would need something more. I think under any detailed examination of actual operations one can only drawn the conclusion the Soviets did rely on the weight provided by these resources. The casualty statistics for the whole war simply demonstrate how these advantages were brought to bear and ultimately took their toll on the Germans - e.g. even in 1941 how every time the Germans tore another hole in the Russian OOB another army seemed to have formed to fill the gap in a way which did not so much defeat the Germans - at least until Typhoon - but just wore them out and took the momentum out of the offensive. By later 1943 the Russians outnumbered the Germans in mobilised manpower by over 2 to 1.

 

[Darth Tracid]

this is definately better off in the history section. MOVED TRACID

 

[unmerged(31881)]

eeeeeehh, do I get you right here?

Earlier elsewhere somebody cited total Soviet deaths as proof of German military superiority.
Including civilians death is obviously not proof of that.

For the military casualties at least three other factors should be considered.

First, Germany did not invade the Soviet Union alone. It had allies: Finland, Romania, Italy, Hungary, etc.
So not every Soviet military casualty is caused by the Germans alone.

Second, German treatment of Red Army prisoners deliberately resulted in millions of deaths.
When considering the total number of Soviet military dead this should not be forgotten.

Lastly, after 1941 half the Soviet manpower base was under occupation.
Significant agricultural, industrial and raw material were also faced due to the loss of these areas.

Human Wave was not the Soviet doctrine.
Had flooding the germans with dead bodies been the strategy, Hitler would have had his Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line.

1:1 is closer than 10:1 to the truth.

 

[unmerged(47690)]

That's right the main idea is that it was a very fierce fight and nobody could really tell who will win that's why USSR mobilized all it's resources plus our commanders were the same level as german.At the begging of war for about 2-3 years USSR hadn't any advantage either in manpower or in resources.And USSR won the war not because of great number of people but because good and right strategy.