Could the USSR have been defeated?

[Friant]

Battle of the Bulge was just a bulge, not thousands of miles of wilderness to traverse.

Even with winter clothing and anti-freeze, the winter was hell on equipment. The anti-freeze froze, weapons jammed, even soldiers who weren't performing forced marches across the countryside suffered from severe frostbite, etc. Plus, by winter-41 the Soviet reserves from Siberia were free and would have been on the front line from the beginning.

I still think there must be a wargamey golden path to military victory even without the economic and political changes pre-1941 that have been discussed here. However, outside of saving and re-loading constantly to get the best possible result every hour, I don't think the path is achievable IRL.

 

[DarkSoul1984]

The winter was hell on Russian men and materiel as well.....

....the average Russian soldier was cheap cannon fodder, thrown into the fray, and used as a stop gap. The average German soldier was better regarded by his superiors, most likely due to the simple economic reason of......it cost so much more to train him.

I will live my life and die with the belief that German command decisions caused a fubar situation. The Soviets were just along for the ride....

 

[von_Manstein11]

i just want to point out that the cold is overrated!

I live in Canada and our winters in my area got to about -35C and with windchill -50C. I used to have to stand guard for hours at a time in the windy snowy crappy weather and it didnt bother me one bit, the worst part of winter the when it first hits. All you need is a week of it to get used to it and then your past the agony of it all.

 

[unmerged(41155)]

You should read about Patton and the Battle of the Bulge. Pretty much refutes your statement there.

As for your other stuff about the Russian soldier and German bias.....

....I would say casualty records and kill counts speak for themselves.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Patton's little march of 100 miles to relieve the 101st at Bastonge, over the roads of Western Europe would have seemed like a pleasant summer hike when compared to the USSR. Especially considering the US army's transport ability vs. that of the German or Russian armies.

Casualty records? Your point being? It's easy to rack up high kill counts when your enemy marchs wave upon wave of infantry at your waiting MG's. They don't speak for themselves, sorry.

-dave

 

[Spruce]

No USSR could not have been defeated - this is quite drastic to conclude but this is my motivation.

The Barbarossa plan incorporated by Hitler, was based on the vision that the USSR could be defeated by a fast operation and take Moscow prior to winter setting in. The communist regime would cave in and Germany would state the peace conditions and have lots of Lebensraum...

When I read about the execution of Barbarossa I guess the Germans did allright - even outperformed. So imho, the wehrmacht and generals are not to blame.

The USSR could have been defeated if Germany had planned otherwise - the conquest should be seen in a 2 years campaign. Or an earlier Barbarossa, which was unfavourable due to the size of the project. So a 2 years campaign should have been better. The most important error was that Hitler
neglected the impact of stranding in front of those big cities like Moscow and Leningrad. It would have been nice if panic took over the commies - but he didn't count of stranding on the outskirts and dealing with a counterattack on his spearheads ... that had been trained and operating to blitz trough this big country.

a relentlessly attack loosing momentum in front of a great strategic defensive structure - a mega city ! Supplied by a huge "Hinterland" that is . This is not realistic ... even more if you look how large the front was - there were operations from Leningrad down to Sebastopoll - a huge operation with a huge front.

A little creativity would have solved the German problem if they had planned for 2 years - or had focused on the real targets Moscow and Leningrad. Suppose the Germans had focused on arriving at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad with an option to completely surround if possible. If not possible - they had to foresee a defensive situation and survive the fierce winter and take on Stalins winter offensive.

Also the naive Nazi stance on conquered territories - and possible allies - is likely to make the project totally unrealistic. The conquered Ukrainian people - and other minorities - could have been approached in a totally different way to aid the communist defeat and to guarantuee some stable satelitte after the hypothetical victory. The sympathy to aid the war against the communists wasn't really stimulated by the German approach ... and in the end the Germans where fighting everybody and everything.

The way Barborrassa was conceived leaves me with little doubt, this project was totally unrealistic.

Ironically Stalin saved his skin by launching his winter offensive. It was a tactical blunder but a strategic victory - giving the fact that Hitler was tempted to leave Moscow alone during the next year and given the fact that the Communist regime would cave in due to the political victory in Moscow...

If Hitler would have cut trough Northern USSR - divert resources from the Southern front to either enforce the Nothern drive - or to start earlier with Barbarossa - and instigate some sort of uprising in Ukraine - the communist regime would fall after Moscow and Leningrad were encircled. And if not - they could drive South the next year to liberate the Ukraine and claim the oil fields...

 

[ROMMEL_HSQ]

i just want to point out that the cold is overrated!

I live in Canada and our winters in my area got to about -35C and with windchill -50C. I used to have to stand guard for hours at a time in the windy snowy crappy weather and it didnt bother me one bit, the worst part of winter the when it first hits. All you need is a week of it to get used to it and then your past the agony of it all.

maybe bcz you are used to it every year...I live in Qatar and when it reach 10 C I feel like dying from the cold of course it's better than dying from the sun in the summer with over 48C :rofl:

 

[Friant]

The USSR could have been defeated if Germany had planned otherwise - the conquest should be seen in a 2 years campaign

Reading this made me flashback to the same argument made for Napoleon's invasion: winter at Smolensk, then strike for Moscow in 1813.

Funny which lessons from history are internalized and which are forgotten. It is commonly believed that Hitler de-emphasized taking Moscow because of Napoleon's experience. However, it seems in retrospect that the early capture of that city offered the best chance, not a guarantee, but a small chance, of a victorious campaign. It wasn't the summer vacation home it was in 1812. However, the lesson to plan for winter and possibly beyond escaped him.

 

[DarkSoul1984]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Patton's little march of 100 miles to relieve the 101st at Bastonge, over the roads of Western Europe would have seemed like a pleasant summer hike when compared to the USSR. Especially considering the US army's transport ability vs. that of the German or Russian armies.

Casualty records? Your point being? It's easy to rack up high kill counts when your enemy marchs wave upon wave of infantry at your waiting MG's. They don't speak for themselves, sorry.

-dave

Oy.........I love close-minded people.

Pound for pound the Germans were better. Mile for mile, they fought harder. Tactically and strategically.....oh so much better. We are speaking of like...Mr. Universe in a fight versus the dork from math class.

The Soviets had to:
a) receive massive amounts of aid from the Allies
b) Lose almost 10% of their population against the Germans alone
c) destroy the own belongings in a scorched earth policy
d) sign a non-agression pact with one of the axis
e) forced conscription of their people

.......and so on, and so on, and so on.......

People can recount all sorts of things about their experience on the Soviet side. Take away the propping up of a poorly planned production system by the world's largest (by freakin' far) industrial base, and you get what I like to term the death of commies.

 

[coreymas]

i just want to point out that the cold is overrated!

I live in Canada and our winters in my area got to about -35C and with windchill -50C. I used to have to stand guard for hours at a time in the windy snowy crappy weather and it didnt bother me one bit, the worst part of winter the when it first hits. All you need is a week of it to get used to it and then your past the agony of it all.

Yes but did you do that in a very light spring jacket, no hat, standard non lined pants and non-lined boots all the while running and hiding and being shot at constantly.... cause that is what the Germans had to do during the first winter.

If you were a Canadian armed forces soldier than chances are much greater that you had in the very least a parka with a lined hood, a ski mask (cagool) lined weather proof pants, long johns, heavy wool socks and muklucks .

Don't compare apples to oranges, cause the germans had none of what you probably wore.

And yes i can say this with pretty much athority cause I was a Canadian Armed Forces soldier.

Corey

 

[Kanitatlan]

Here are a few answers to odds and ends in this thread.

Firstly the discussion of attacking in winter misses the real problem. For good effective attacking you nee relatively clear weather and day light. the real problem is daylight, in the winter there is just so much less of it. The summer has got to be the primary campaign season just because of length of night issues.

Next, the armed forces of both sides did pretty much as well as they were going to do and any discussion of actual strategy is just tinkering. Moscow first or not is a side issue. The fact is that the Germans nearly beat the Russians. Both sides where running out of manpower and in desparate straights. The real difference was in the economic raction to war. Just consider the following.

The Germans collected 200,000 trucks from occupied countries for use in the 1942 campaign, consider the difference it would have made if these had been collected earlier to support the 1941 campaign instead of to try and correct massive losses of motor vehicles.

What if the Germans had taken the war seriously from the start and gone to a total war economy from the start. With this model we are looking at several thousand more german tanks plus piles of other war material. All the Germans needed to do was destroy the Russian army and neutralise enough of their economy and then there would be no real possibility of the Russian army coming back and defeating them. The one thing that really characterises German failure in WWII is the attachment to the idea of a limited war whereas the Russians took the whole thing to the ultimate limit introducing the real idea of Total War, every single asset devoted to one purpose and one purpose only.

Ultimately all what ifs will fail because they require a fundemental shift in the political shape of one or more of the countries involved. The fact is that Hitler and the Nazi party adopted policies which lead inexorably to the total defeat of Germany. The biggest what if is "What if Hitler decided Poland was one step too far and WWII didn't happen". In HOI2 everyone attacks Germany anyway but this is hardly realistic.

Just remember, if you don't win quick its the war economy that decides it.

 

[von_Manstein11]

whats wrong darksoul, all those pro russian rants getting on your nerves?

I Find it amazing how people can make opinions off of just reading one book or by only reading things written from one side.

I have even noticed in some things I have read from Russians, they even felt lucky to win the war becuase they knew the level of Professionalism the Germans innitated and maintained an attack, the way they could co-ordinate every aspect of battle while it was going and how there own commanders didnt give a shit how many died as long as it looked like they tried so they wouldnt be executed.

 

[ROMMEL_HSQ]

btw does anyone know how many division were left in France?? I think I read there was around 33. which Guderian said was totaly unneccesary. Also if memory serve me the german forces didn't get reinforcemnets in the first months of Barbarosa

 

[unmerged(41155)]

We are speaking of like...Mr. Universe in a fight versus the dork from math class.

Ummm, FYI. The dork from Math Class won. Germany lost the war, close does not count.

Does the end justify the means. That's another entirely different debate, not for this thread.

Am I closed minded? You seem to think so, but I think it's the other way around. You are definately in the camp of the war was Germanys to lose, a group I know all to well as I used to belong to it. Fortunately some great authours are working to change that perception of the GPW which has been fed to us since 1945.

BTW Germany force conscripted it's population too.

-dave

 

[DarkSoul1984]

Ummm, FYI. The dork from Math Class won. Germany lost the war, close does not count.

Does the end justify the means. That's another entirely different debate, not for this thread.

Am I closed minded? You seem to think so, but I think it's the other way around. You are definately in the camp of the war was Germanys to lose, a group I know all to well as I used to belong to it. Fortunately some great authours are working to change that perception of the GPW which has been fed to us since 1945.

BTW Germany force conscripted it's population too.

-dave

Their forced conscription occurred later. And yes, the war was Germany's to lose. It was the Axis' war to lose.

 

[DarkSoul1984]

By the way, just going through history.......every war is the attackers to lose.

 

[von_Manstein11]

btw does anyone know how many division were left in France?? I think I read there was around 33. which Guderian said was totaly unneccesary. Also if memory serve me the german forces didn't get reinforcemnets in the first months of Barbarosa

Ill write the OKH deployment out for June 41


OB West: 38 Divisons
2 Panzer regiments

AOK Norwegan: 12 1/2 Divisions

Romania: 13 Divisions
9 Brigades

Serbia: 4 Divisions

Afrika: 2 Divisions

"Edit" Greece: 2 1/3 Divisions ( so small i missed it)
Crete: 1 Mountain Division

Eastern Front: 120 1/3 Divisions

OKH Reserve: 28 1/3 Divisions

 

[DarkSoul1984]

Ok, I think this bears repeating for this thread. Just like I said it in the other thread about Spain.....

......nothing is impossible in war.

 

[Syagrius]

Here are a few answers to odds and ends in this thread.

Firstly the discussion of attacking in winter misses the real problem. For good effective attacking you nee relatively clear weather and day light. the real problem is daylight, in the winter there is just so much less of it. The summer has got to be the primary campaign season just because of length of night issues.

Next, the armed forces of both sides did pretty much as well as they were going to do and any discussion of actual strategy is just tinkering. Moscow first or not is a side issue. The fact is that the Germans nearly beat the Russians. Both sides where running out of manpower and in desparate straights. The real difference was in the economic raction to war. Just consider the following.

The Germans collected 200,000 trucks from occupied countries for use in the 1942 campaign, consider the difference it would have made if these had been collected earlier to support the 1941 campaign instead of to try and correct massive losses of motor vehicles.

What if the Germans had taken the war seriously from the start and gone to a total war economy from the start. With this model we are looking at several thousand more german tanks plus piles of other war material. All the Germans needed to do was destroy the Russian army and neutralise enough of their economy and then there would be no real possibility of the Russian army coming back and defeating them. The one thing that really characterises German failure in WWII is the attachment to the idea of a limited war whereas the Russians took the whole thing to the ultimate limit introducing the real idea of Total War, every single asset devoted to one purpose and one purpose only.

Ultimately all what ifs will fail because they require a fundemental shift in the political shape of one or more of the countries involved. The fact is that Hitler and the Nazi party adopted policies which lead inexorably to the total defeat of Germany. The biggest what if is "What if Hitler decided Poland was one step too far and WWII didn't happen". In HOI2 everyone attacks Germany anyway but this is hardly realistic.

Just remember, if you don't win quick its the war economy that decides it.

Well said, I couldn't agree more!

 

[DarkSoul1984]

Yeah.......except you run into a few cases that point the opposite way throughout history. In this classic sense of one country invading another you run into the typical question of should you maximize efficient use of the resources you have or shoot for the aim of just out-producing the enemy.

Up in the air as to which one is better to use.....

 

[unmerged(42116)]

By the way, just going through history.......every war is the attackers to lose.

What history is it? :rofl: I gues 1984 is your year of birth? You need to read some more before posting making such expert judgments.