German-Soviet Front

[Khelder]

What do you mean changes in focus? Because if you mean diverting to Kiev, that was the most strategically sound move that the Wehrmacht could've made. They eliminated the Southwestern Front and pushed into the industrial areas of Orel-Kharkov and the Donbass,

In the beginning of the offensive Centre was supposed to advance to Moscow, but when they were half way there Hitler decided that the armored Corps of the centre woul have to go and help south and north in their advance giving time for the soviets to strenghten their defences. But as that wouldn´t have been enough after wasting weeks and barely reaching the other army groups the armored Corps were called back to continue the advance agaist Moscow. So instead of pressing the advantage earlier they ended up having to fight prepared soviet troops on their way to Moscow still winning, but slowing the advance down giving even more time to strenghten the defences of Moscow.

I don´t say that it would have been mistake to help surround Kiev but it played a part in that Germans didn´t conquer Moscow. And in the larger scope of war Kiev is of secular importance compared to Moscow. Ofcourse it would have extended the exposed flank of the army groups centre and we can´t really know what would have happened if they would have made another choice and gotten to Moscow. So Kiev might have been sound decision,but atleast it made the advance that much harder that the germans didn´t conquer Moscow IRL.

 

[MGL 86]

There would have been half million Soviet soldiers in southern flank of Army Group Centre if Germans go all out attack on Moscow. And still Moscow was more than 400 miles away

 

[MGL 86]

1. Human wave attack which doesn´t mean just a wave of humans was one of the favourite tactics used by soviet union in the second world war. The idea of overwhelming the enemy with seemingly endless amounts of soldiers played a role in most of the soviet victories during the war. I don´t mean that the soviets wouldn´t have made battleplans and even utilized breakthroughs and other tactics, but in the end of the day soviets were quite fond to spending manpower to win just sending in overwhelming numbers.
2. This is funny thing that people think that way as soviet union didn´t just have 1 rifle per 1 soldier, but even had huge amounts of artillery,tanks, plains, etc.
Which could be seen after Winter War when Finns armed their army with all that equipment that soviets had left behind and even formed armored division( in a finnish meaning couple of hundred tanks + infantry) using soviet tanks. It is even said that when foreign reporters came to check finnish army after winter war that they were amased with the amount of armament that finns had and asked who had supplied all those weapons and the answer was Soviet Union.
3. I don´t say that there were mass shootings but still there were soldiers being shot for running from battle. That happened i
4. Soviet Union would have been in serious problems supplying its attacks, if they wouldn´t have gotten all those trucks,trains,etc from LL. Soviet Union had no problems producing weapons,tanks, etc but had big problems or atleast shortages in the transporting side which was solved by LL as tehay got over 400K trucks, over 2k trains and lots of other vehicles.

5. Ofcourse everyone knows that if there wouldn´t have been eastern front western allies would have been in quite hopeless position to launch invasions to europe and western front was even supposed to just relieve pressure from east.

1. This is not a human wave. It is called Deep battle doctrine. I don`t know that Soviets mostly attacked like WW1 style frontal attack with massed infantry. They used mass armored formation to break through wide front like 100 miles. It is hard to comprehend for western front historians.
2. Agree.
3. Yes. It was not a mass shooting like western historians like to claim. maybe around 1% of stragglers shot.
4. You also forgot to mention there was not a Lend Lease in 1941, 1942 in most critical time for SU. After that it was just a matter of time to Soviets reach Berlin be it 1946 or 1950 without LL.
5. Germans used their 80% of their everything against Soviets until 1944. American historians like to claim that US fought with one hand in the back against Germans and still won. But they always forgot that Germans fought against Americans with only 1 leg while 1 other leg and 2 arms where against Soviets.

 

[zyphial]

As someone who grew up worshiping the standard US version of WW2, it pains me to acknowledge just how much more weight the Soviets pulled, but once you get passed the propagandistic bias, history kinda paints a very different picture. I can't, as someone who prefers truth to comfortable lies, deny the Soviets their amazing victory and contribution to the defeat of the Nazi's.

We bloodied hitler's nose, certainly. They broke hitlers back.

We in the west can at least claim to have crushed Japan and Italy, though.

 

[shri]

The Soviets on their own crushed the minor Axis Allies of Europe- Finland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia. (These allies on their own were small, but together their OOB's were nearly equal to the UK's OOB though with substantially poorer quality of weapons).
The Heer (Land Forces) were more or less crushed by the RKKA in an epic struggle on the Eastern front the likes of which have never been seen before - from the turning point Battle of Moscow, to the Longest Siege at St.Pete and the decisive counter-attack at Stalingrad and Kursk.
The Luftwaffe was battered badly on the Eastern Front.
The Russians managed this despite receiving little/no LL in 1941 and very little in 1942, the advance from 1943 onward was possible at that fast pace due to the 250000 Studebaker Trucks and 50000 Jeeps and 10000 Half Tracks sent by the Americans and also those 2000+ Locomotive engines and thousands of Railway Wagons. Also those 20000+ Tanks/Planes sent by the USA helped tilt the material battle decisively for the Russians but the bodies were all Russian and 13+ million is the estimated price in terms of dead or permanently damaged/injured troops for the RKKA. (these include the deaths due to POW camps and other unmentionables).
However, the decisive battles on the Eastern Front- Moscow, St. Pete (the survival of it) and Stalingrad had been fought without any major input from LL/Western Allies.

It was the Kriegsmarine, Japan and Italy which were actually destroyed by the Western Allies, seeing that they fought the Germans for only 2/6 years in Europe. Africa was always a sideshow.

Germany in RL as well as HOI series will win/lose the War on the Eastern Front, everything else is secondary for Germany and the minor AXIS Allies in Europe.

 

[Adonnus]

Meh, people really overestimate what the Russian army was. The Germans didn't come to a standstill because of any Russian resistance, it was a combination of launching their attack too late in the year (end of summer), not having winter equipment, and constant changes in High Command's focus for the campaign. The Russian army circa Operation Barbarossa was a joke. ESPECIALLY if you attack well before the starting date for Operation Barbarossa, as the Russian military would still be recovering from the officer purges.

Manstein is that you? I didn't know you were still alive and doing revisionism on forums.

 

[GundamMerc]

Manstein is that you? I didn't know you were still alive and doing revisionism on forums.

Guderian actually, tried to tell Hitler not to go to war, but he didn't listen. Responses to snide comments aside, I love all the people coming out of the woodwork acting as if I don't know exactly how much of the land war effort was fought by the Russians, or that they didn't use "human wave" tactics. (neither of which are even relevant to my original statement).

Most of the fighting by the Russians happened from 1942 onwards, with only small battles (relative to the campaign) occurring in 1941, mostly in already surrounded pockets. So the amount that the Russians contributed to the war effort as a whole has no bearing on the question of whether the Germans could have won a campaign. I find it arrogant to the extreme that people say it is "impossible" to take on Russia.

The purge of the Red Army and Military Maritime Fleet removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three- and four-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. This occurred in 1936-1938.

Even if we include the 30% that were allowed to return to service, this is still a near fatal blow to any army's leadership, and would take years to heal. The end of the Winter War and the reorganization that occurred afterwards was a start, but a war on that small a scale and for such a short time still would not be able to affect the change needed. It took the catastrophe of the 1941 defense against Germany to provide the drive and desperation needed to fully implement lasting and proper changes to the Red Army, which would lead to the relative stalemate of 1942, and the constant offensive from 1943 onward.

 

[Adonnus]

You know, the "if they attacked earlier they'd have won/done better" argument has been debunked before, mainly because there were IIRC heavier than usual rains and a large number of troops were not ready due to logistics and other problems. Even if they attacked earlier you're discounting that the winter wasn't the only thing stopping them from taking Moscow and even if they did somehow get close they'd probably be bogged down in urban combat over the winter.

It's not arrogant in the extreme. That makes no sense in describing it as arrogant unless you're Stalin himself. It's just true that there is basically no compilation of favourable events that would lead to an Axis victory in the east. As it stood the Axis had a very, very good run and even excluding the things you've mentioned they probably wouldn't have dealt any sort of killing blow to the 3 main Soviet abilities keeping them alive: receiving lend lease aid, mass production from factories far from Moscow and the ability to quickly raise or reinforce armies whenever needed. Unless you can think of some simple way that Germany's greatest military minds couldn't think of to stop maybe two of these three things - the last two being most important, there's no hope of an Axis victory in the east.

 

[shri]

Most of the fighting by the Russians happened from 1942 onwards, with only small battles (relative to the campaign) occurring in 1941, mostly in already surrounded pockets. So the amount that the Russians contributed to the war effort as a whole has no bearing on the question of whether the Germans could have won a campaign. I find it arrogant to the extreme that people say it is "impossible" to take on Russia.

.

Stop this nonsense and spend 10 minutes googling - Battle of Moscow.
In fact i will even post an opening link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

Just that single battle had more men concentrated by the Germans than all their campaigns put together pre-1941. Never did the Germans even reach half those numbers in the entire Italian Campaign or in the 1944-45 Western Campaign, do you want to know why? They were trying to stop the RKKA in the East.

Just this early battle -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941–42)

Saw more bitter fighting than the Western Allies ever did against the Germans, the entire Garrison alongwith their commanders preferred to fight and die than meekly surrender.

 

[3ishop]

Erm guys, going a bit off topic here and on the historical rather than gameplay that the OP asked...maybe get back to the topic?

I do agree the Eastern front stuggles in game sometimes but it's very hard to get it set to happen rightly without huge amounts of scripting which players can then exploit, add in the like 4 and a half year build up and tweaking we can do it can change a lot of the variables in game.

 

[Adonnus]

It's actually a hard topic to discuss since we don't know what the current Soviet or German AI is really like or what the devs are thinking in regards to what they're planning to improve. The most we uneducated forumites can do is make suggestions and hope it's possible with the AI knowledge of someone who is better at it. AI is a really hard thing to do right.

 

[GundamMerc]

You know, the "if they attacked earlier they'd have won/done better" argument has been debunked before, mainly because there were IIRC heavier than usual rains and a large number of troops were not ready due to logistics and other problems. Even if they attacked earlier you're discounting that the winter wasn't the only thing stopping them from taking Moscow and even if they did somehow get close they'd probably be bogged down in urban combat over the winter.

It's not arrogant in the extreme. That makes no sense in describing it as arrogant unless you're Stalin himself. It's just true that there is basically no compilation of favourable events that would lead to an Axis victory in the east. As it stood the Axis had a very, very good run and even excluding the things you've mentioned they probably wouldn't have dealt any sort of killing blow to the 3 main Soviet abilities keeping them alive: receiving lend lease aid, mass production from factories far from Moscow and the ability to quickly raise or reinforce armies whenever needed. Unless you can think of some simple way that Germany's greatest military minds couldn't think of to stop maybe two of these three things - the last two being most important, there's no hope of an Axis victory in the east.

It is, in fact, arrogant to the extreme. Or shall we go into depth about how unlikely it is for the Mongols to conquer nearly all of Asia? Because that certainly happened.

Stop this nonsense and spend 10 minutes googling - Battle of Moscow.
In fact i will even post an opening link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

Just that single battle had more men concentrated by the Germans than all their campaigns put together pre-1941. Never did the Germans even reach half those numbers in the entire Italian Campaign or in the 1944-45 Western Campaign, do you want to know why? They were trying to stop the RKKA in the East.

Just this early battle -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Campaign

Saw more bitter fighting than the Western Allies ever did against the Germans, the entire Garrison alongwith their commanders preferred to fight and die than meekly surrender.

You realize that

A) the battle of Moscow happened after the release of troops from the central effort to focus on the Caucuses and Leningrad allowed the Soviets to reform their army, meaning they had been given time they normally wouldn't have had

B) the Battle of Moscow does not refer to just a battle in front of Moscow, but in fact the entire front. So of course it has a huge number of men on each side. However, the Russians were not, in fact, a cohesive fighting force at this point, as compared to the Germans. They were buying time desperately until the winter and logistical supply train of the Germans caught up with them. They were literally throwing men into losing battles for the sole purpose of buying time. They slowed down the German advance.

The time bought, however, allowed the rest of the Red Army, including the Siberian divisions that were on alert for possible Japanese attacks, that when they never came allowed Stalin to focus his entire forces on the front against Germany. So in fact if anyone is to take the majority of the blame for the German loss, I would say it would be the Japanese who did not launch their own offensive (whether that particular offensive could succeed or not considering all the fighting they were doing in China is another story, but all it had to do was hold the divisions in place) as part of the Anti-Comintern Pact.

 

[Adonnus]

Comparing a number of feudal era states facing a Mongol army to the German-Soviet war is a totally valid comparison. Why don't we go into depth instead into how and why you believe it was indeed possible to conquer the USSR? (Somehow.)

 

[shri]

I
A) the battle of Moscow happened after the release of troops from the central effort to focus on the Caucuses and Leningrad allowed the Soviets to reform their army, meaning they had been given time they normally wouldn't have had

Time was earned on the back of 4 million body-bags (includes the POWs). The RKKA was estimated as having just 200 divisions or less at the start of the campaign, by end of July some 180 had been destroyed and a further 180 had been detected mobilising using the "ECHELON" mobilisation set-up of the RKKA. By the end of 1941, the RKKA would have fielded over 500 division equivalents. Nothing in the world had prepared the Wehrmacht to fight such a gargantuan amount of men & material.
Again even in late November 1941, with 1/3rd of the Industry on Railway box-cars being transported to the Far East, the Russians were producing 800-900 tanks per month including vastly better T-34 and KV series Tanks. by mid-late 1942 they would be producing 2000 per month. German Tank production in 1941 was a measly 3500.

I
B) the Battle of Moscow does not refer to just a battle in front of Moscow, but in fact the entire front. So of course it has a huge number of men on each side. However, the Russians were not, in fact, a cohesive fighting force at this point, as compared to the Germans. They were buying time desperately until the winter and logistical supply train of the Germans caught up with them. They were literally throwing men into losing battles for the sole purpose of buying time. They slowed down the German advance.

So? It is war and everything is fair in War. It was a WAR greater than any war before or since and all tactics are fair if it helps you win.
Again, the Germans never were a cohesive force like in June-August when fighting in November and December.

Gen Eduard Wagner, the Quarter Master General of the Wehrmacht and a man who knew infinitely more about logistics than me or you said this on -
27 November 1941 he reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and material. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."
This shows, he did not believe his forces resembled a coherent enough force.

David Glantz in his book calls the RKKA and WEHRMACHT as 2 badly bruised boxers at the end of their strength in November 1941.

I
The time bought, however, allowed the rest of the Red Army, including the Siberian divisions that were on alert for possible Japanese attacks, that when they never came allowed Stalin to focus his entire forces on the front against Germany. So in fact if anyone is to take the majority of the blame for the German loss, I would say it would be the Japanese who did not launch their own offensive (whether that particular offensive could succeed or not considering all the fighting they were doing in China is another story, but all it had to do was hold the divisions in place) as part of the Anti-Comintern Pact.

Siberian Divisions is a myth that dies hard, anyway the fact is that the Army of East numbered 750000 in May 1941 and in December 1941 it was over 700000 strong in number, shows hardly a decrease in numbers. What Stalin did is he pulled out his experienced troops and replaced them with raw recruits.

As for the Japanese, they got a bloody nose at Khalkin Gol-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

This decided their decision to go south and was reported by Richard Sorge to Stalin in September 1941.

 

[Overestimate]

It's always fun to read these threads where the revisionist wehraboos try to spin the cause of German defeat in the east to be literally everything else (LL, weather, timing, hitler, operational decisions, kitchen sink, hitler again) except the Russians and the red army.

It's almost like operation barbarossa was a summer holiday ruined by wrongly packed luggage and poor weather. Incredible.

 

[Opanashc]

Kiev encirclement is biggest encirclement in history of warfare. There is no other example like losing more than a half million soldiers in a month. I think this is a very good decision from Hitler or stupid decision from Stalin.

Considering, that Germans reported more POWs taken, then Red Army had soldiers in the region...
Albeit it was a grand fiasco for Soviet Union.

 

[GundamMerc]

I don't disagree that the Russians eventually defeated the Germans, but I disagree that the same Russian Army that was unable to even stall the German offensive until October of 1941 was nearly as strong as it was in 1942-onwards.

Siberian Divisions is a myth that dies hard, anyway the fact is that the Army of East numbered 750000 in May 1941 and in December 1941 it was over 700000 strong in number, shows hardly a decrease in numbers. What Stalin did is he pulled out his experienced troops and replaced them with raw recruits.
As for the Japanese, they got a bloody nose at Khalkin Gol-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

This decided their decision to go south and was reported by Richard Sorge to Stalin in September 1941.

Your very "proof" only proves my point. Stalin pulled his experienced troops to the German front and replaced them with conscripts. The Red Army didn't start out the powerful war machine that it became in 1942-45. Troops were conscripted, it was expanded, and through hard-earned experienced it became an implacable foe.

You people seem to be of this opinion that an army can magically become ultra-competent and able to organize a vast amount of logistics. That just isn't the case. The German army as a whole had fought both Poland and France at this point, and finished two campaigns. The Russians were still recovering from the purges, only had a battle against the Japanese and a small "war" (while large on scale for the Finnish, was ultimately small in scale for the Russians) in the Winter War, an embarrassing display of incompetence only a year before. I would say that in fact you guys are the revisionists, trying to provide competence to a Russian army that was still recovering from all these things and then was asked to fight a war against Germany, and failed utterly until the weather gave them time to reorganize, and for major reforms to be put into effect.

 

[Loke]

Comparing a number of feudal era states facing a Mongol army to the German-Soviet war is a totally valid comparison. Why don't we go into depth instead into how and why you believe it was indeed possible to conquer the USSR? (Somehow.)

Probably because 3 other nations in 3 different wars defeated Russia just 20+ years earlier...

 

[shri]

I don't disagree that the Russians eventually defeated the Germans, but I disagree that the same Russian Army that was unable to even stall the German offensive until October of 1941 was nearly as strong as it was in 1942-onwards.


Your very "proof" only proves my point. Stalin pulled his experienced troops to the German front and replaced them with conscripts. The Red Army didn't start out the powerful war machine that it became in 1942-45. Troops were conscripted, it was expanded, and through hard-earned experienced it became an implacable foe.

You people seem to be of this opinion that an army can magically become ultra-competent and able to organize a vast amount of logistics. That just isn't the case. The German army as a whole had fought both Poland and France at this point, and finished two campaigns. The Russians were still recovering from the purges, only had a battle against the Japanese and a small "war" (while large on scale for the Finnish, was ultimately small in scale for the Russians) in the Winter War, an embarrassing display of incompetence only a year before. I would say that in fact you guys are the revisionists, trying to provide competence to a Russian army that was still recovering from all these things and then was asked to fight a war against Germany, and failed utterly until the weather gave them time to reorganize, and for major reforms to be put into effect.

I will just quote Sun Tsu
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Proves the Germans never stood a iota of chance to win against the USSR.

 

[shri]

Probaby because 3 other nations in 3 different wars defeated Russia just 20+ years earlier.

Other than WW1 and Russo-Japanese war, which war do you allude? Genuinely curious, not a sarcasm.