How and When German manpower was severely depleted against Soviets ?

[krieger11b]

Lets not forget that when the Soviet Union advanced they got more manpower back, while Germany kept losing it. Go and buy some USSR Moisin 91/30 rifles (if your country allows this) you find that about 70+% of them were from 1943 alone they had a large amount of people to suddenly arm. A large amount of in 1944 of the M44 model when they went from the 91/30 to M44 version. You can tell they were also really rushed models as they skipped a lot of things like a good wood finish and polished/smoothed out parts.

 

[Cavalry]

Yes there were conflicting intelligence signals. Under such circumstances a reasonable thing to do would to be cautious in case your preferred/primary intelligence picture turned out wrong. Stalin chose to ignore all intelligence that conflicted with his belief that the Germans would not attack soon..

Let's look at the mistake of USSR that Marshall Zhukov wrote in his "The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov":
- USSR in general were good prepared for war, but empasize on attacking, not defense.
- They expected to be attacked hard on the South (Ukraine) because the German will need wheat, coal, oil for long term war, but the most powerful German attack is on the West (Bielorussia) for quick war.
- The newly aquirred territory didn't have finish defense structures.
- Stalin want peace and more time to prepared, so he didn't agree to make the border units in war state, ie go to the trenches. When the order was finally out on the just some hours before the war, the German already cut communication line in several units
- Hitler was foolish enough to invade USSR before finishing British and USA. No one can guess what a fool may do!

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Stalingrad was renamed after him because he was bacially a dictator. He didn't really achieve anything useful in the Civil War. If it was for achievement, half of the Soviet cities would have been renamed after Trotsky.

Easy-Kill already addressed a chunk of this question.

i would go further and point out two factors , one a Soviet "Patriotic War" wasn't dreamt up whole cloth during the fighting against the Nazis... it was quite clearly spelt out as a concept earlier. [An internet debate is not reason enough for me to dig up the exchange with Lenin on the subject, short version is that a socialist state really deserves to have its wars appraised as patriotic... as they would be defending a state belonging to the people, compared to squabbles between monarchs, capitalists, etc.] As was his analysis regarding regarding industrial evacuation (with Iron Felix, re: Perm iirc). Both of these are huge factors in the Soviet victory. (The latter by necessity impromptu but informed at least by earlier experience.)

As to Trotsky; the RKKA was a territorial based militia into quite late in the game, iirc in 1936. Trotsky was denouncing as counter-revolutionary-Thermidorean-blah-blah-blah the decision to switch to a regular army. Had half the cities been renamed in his honour, i doubt any would be around to be renamed to something else...

 

[makif130289]

Quite the opposite, especially after the rise of the resistance movements in the occupied countries. In Denmark the German occupation forces consisted of 2 divisions until 1942, then it gradually rose, 160,000 men in 1943 and 180,000 in 1944. And that is just Denmark, a small and relatively easy country to control on account of size and terrain. Then consider all the countries that was occupied by the Germans, some very large, some with difficult terrain and some with much more fierce resistance to suppress.

Occupying hostile nations costs a lot of manpower, a problem the Soviets didn't have to face until very late in the war.

AFAIK, partisan movements weren't really much powerful until 1944. Even Yugoslav partisans weren't very active until 1944. My point is that by mid-1943, Soviets has already won the war. Partisans contributed much to Allied war cause later in the war but that was still after German failure in the East.

There is a movie called Max Manus which tells the story of Norweigan resistance. Most of the activity is in 1945. And this is historically consistent with most of the partisan movements ( except for Soviets' their own partisans ). Somewhere in the movie, the main character says that "if we don't act, Germans may transport their troops there to mainland Europe and could win the war against the Allies". This is obviously meant to increase the role of Norweigan resistance, but the line is ridiculous. I somewhat compare this to the Allied efforts in the war. With or without D-Day or Strategic bombardment or Husky, Soviets has already won the war in Stalingrad. This was a way before the Allied offensive actions playing a major role in the war.

 

[krieger11b]

Hitler was foolish enough to invade USSR before finishing British and USA. No one can guess what a fool may do!

I grant you that was likely one of his biggest blunders but we don't know what the USSR military would have been like if given a year or two more of peace time to progress the changes set forth after the Soviet-Finnish war. Though you could also agrue by then Germany would have known about the T-34 and acted approprately, so many butterflies.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

I grant you that was likely one of his biggest blunders but we don't know what the USSR military would have been like if given a year or two more of peace time to progress the changes set forth after the Soviet-Finnish war. Though you could also agrue by then Germany would have known about the T-34 and acted approprately, so many butterflies.

There are production figures projected for the period. (You may have heard the Soviets were big on planning...)

It would have been more formidable but in terms of 'grand strategy' but essentially the USSR was 'turtling' and building up its forces in a process that would not have been done any time soon.

German intelligence in the run-up to Barbarossa never seriously took the Soviets as a threat; information was processed within the framework of how easier/faster it would be to destroy the Red Army and conquer the USSR.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

I think that Makif does a good job addressing some myths related to the Western vs Eastern front debate. Check out volumes of Lend-Lease before 1943, consider the scales of the African theatre vs the Eastern front, look up real effects of strategic bombing etc...

The effects of the purge are also largely exaggerated. One of the real problems was initial deployment in summer 41, USSR deliberately did not want to provoke Germany into aggresssion, not that they were totally blind to possible German attack. They knew the clash between the two major enemies and new masters of Europe would eventually take place.

The Soviets had their share of massive blunders, most importantly several failures in battles of Rzhev. The primary effect of Stalingrad was that the Germans had to withdraw and tighten the line so the Soviets could finally advance in the center, in places where the bloodiest and material-intensive battles took place before. Funnily, the western mainstream follows Soviet propaganda which put the lights on Stalingrad and less attention to Rzhev. While the Russian historiographic mainstream now acknowledges that Stalingrad was not the most important battle but a secondary battle which allowed the Soviets to win a primary battle. Nevertheless, the Stalingrad battle was basically won by the Soviets alone, Lend Lease to USSR was not really massive until 1944. On the other hand, some revisionists say that the USSR could actually collapse after Stalingrad due to exhaustion of food which Lend Lease to USSR prevented and allowed the Soviets to continue having the population almost fully mobilized in industry and cover the food needs by Lend lease. Rails, trucks, canned meat and grain was a big chunk of total Lend lease and most of it was delivered after Stalingrad.

 

[DoomBunny]

My point is that by mid-1943, Soviets has already won the war.

Even assuming determinism is accepted, it would be the war as it then stood. With the Western Allies in it.

With or without D-Day or Strategic bombardment or Husky, Soviets has already won the war in Stalingrad. This was a way before the Allied offensive actions playing a major role in the war.

So without North Africa, Italy, France, various Partisan movements, the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the German industrial base, and lend-lease, the USSRis supposed to win? Even post-Stalingrad, they're not in a great position.

I think that Makif does a good job addressing some myths related to the Western vs Eastern front debate. Check out volumes of Lend-Lease before 1943

Still a sizeable contribution, even if 43 and post are for some reason eliminated because "We already won".

consider the scales of the African theatre vs the Eastern front

A disproportionate number of trucks, as well as the Tunis idiocy which cost the Germans much men and equipment.

look up real effects of strategic bombing etc...

The real effects? Pretty massive.

Oil production was wiped out, along with large parts of the transport network and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighter force. Chemical production, and subsequently explosive production was severely dented. Weapons production was also retarded by a significant margin. Moreover, significant resources were tied up defending against the bombers. 800,000 men and 50,000 guns for flak defence, another million plus for cleanup. Half of electronics output, 20% of artillery ammunition and an increase in the production of flak guns. By Spring 1943 70% of German fighters were committed in the West. Efforts to retaliate led to the V projects which achieved very little.

 

[Cavalry]

Strategist bombing:

The real effects? Pretty massive.

Oil production was wiped out, along with large parts of the transport network and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighter force. Chemical production, and subsequently explosive production was severely dented. Weapons production was also retarded by a significant margin. Moreover, significant resources were tied up defending against the bombers. 800,000 men and 50,000 guns for flak defence, another million plus for cleanup. Half of electronics output, 20% of artillery ammunition and an increase in the production of flak guns. By Spring 1943 70% of German fighters were committed in the West. Efforts to retaliate led to the V projects which achieved very little.

As I know, the German Army have the biggest numbers of troops in 1943, and German industries get the biggest number of output in 1944. Strategist bombing only reach Romania oil field in August 1943, and only in great number in deep mainland Germany in 1944 after aquiring Italia and France bases for escort fighters.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate..._II#Allied_bombing_statistics_1939.E2.80.9345
RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany 1939–45[168]
Year RAF Bomber
Command (tons) US 8th AirForce (tons)
1939 31 —
1940 13,033 —
1941 31,504 —
1942 45,561 1,561
1943 157,457 44,165
1944 525,518 389,119
1945 191,540 188,573
Total 964,644 623,418

 

[makif130289]

Exactly. Romanian campaign started only after the final nail on German coffin at Kursk.

Almost all Allied offensive contribution came after Kursk. Allies only managed to finish North African Campaign by Kursk which was essentially an Italian Front, not German.

Partisans, Lend-Lease, Air campaign, Husky, D-Day almost all of them became important factor by 1944. Lend-Lease is in my opinion one the most exaggerated things in WWII. That truck issue is quite popular, you may search for many sources on the internet, here is one :

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

In 1943, Soviets received only 22k trucks according to the data. In that year, they have 378k trucks in use. Numbers greatly increase in 1944 and in 1945 but that is again after German collapse in Stalingrad-Kursk.

Short summary of Lend-Lease to Soviets is like this in Wiki : 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[27] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[28] and 1.75 million tons of food.

Let's look at overall tank production in the war : Soviets 100k, USA 87k. I must also add that of 7k US tanks sent, only 4k was of Sherman Type, other were older tanks.

Aircraft production : USA 324k, Soviets 150k.

Just compare aircraft and tank production volume of Lend-Lease to overall production of Soviets. Yes, importance of Lend-Lease was mainly trucks + raw materials + food. I mentioned truck issue above, for raw materials and food, i accept that American help was quite important but i don't think Soviets would have lost without that help after 1943. Soviet didn't severely lack any material either ( like German lack of oil ) so that they collapse without US help.

Here is Lend-Lease volumes by year :

1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.
1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Artic.
1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Artic.
1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Artic.
1945 3,673,819t (last shipments 20 Sept) of which: 44,513 Persian Gulf, 2,079,320 Soviet Far East, 726,725 North Russia, 680,723 Black Sea, 142,538 Soviet Artic.

So, we need to scale overall numbers listed in Wiki by those shipment tonnes to obtain approximate numbers shipped until Kursk.

And one final additional source for shipments : http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/lendlse.htm

 

[CruelDwarf]

Main contribution from lend-lease is:
1. Explosives and gunpowder/chemical components for them. 50% of the soviet production.
2. Aviation gasoline and components for its production. Up to 60% of the soviet production.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Main contribution from lend-lease is:
1. Explosives and gunpowder/chemical components for them. 50% of the soviet production.
2. Aviation gasoline and components for its production. Up to 60% of the soviet production.

I would add train engines to that list. These helped alot imo.

 

[Jos de trol]

let's not forget the whole air defence thing at home, the whole second front thing and the whole domestic production thing

also ofc germany continually shredded a lot of its divisions in futile thingies, the soviets also shredded their divisions but at least they were going someplace

 

[DoomBunny]

German industries get the biggest number of output in 1944.

This is due to the ridiculous way the German economy was run in the early part of the war. There was so much slack that, whilst bombing was certainly at this point not crippling, it would have been very hard not to achieve an increase.

Strategist bombing only reach Romania oil field in August 1943

Yep, but it happened.

and only in great number in deep mainland Germany in 1944 after aquiring Italia and France bases for escort fighters.

And yet before that they were already soaking up a massive amount of German resources. In November 1943, the Luftwaffe lost 21% of its fighter force, in December it lost 23%.

Exactly. Romanian campaign started only after the final nail on German coffin at Kursk.

Which isn't a final nail, nor an inevitable outcome, without the Western Allies being in the war.

Almost all Allied offensive contribution came after Kursk. Allies only managed to finish North African Campaign by Kursk which was essentially an Italian Front, not German.

Tunis? Sinking of various German surface ships and U-Boats? Bombing? Invasion of Sicily and removal of Italy from the war? Tying up of German troops in Norway and France? Supply of guerilla organisations and the Soviets?

Partisans, Lend-Lease, Air campaign, Husky, D-Day almost all of them became important factor by 1944.

See, here's the issue. You're assuming that without the Western Allies being involved, things still go historically. Even when there's no reason for them to.

Reach 1944 without the Western Allies involved and the Soviets aren't going to be in anywhere near as good a position.

Lend-Lease is in my opinion one the most exaggerated things in WWII. That truck issue is quite popular, you may search for many sources on the internet, here is one :

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

In 1943, Soviets received only 22k trucks according to the data. In that year, they have 378k trucks in use. Numbers greatly increase in 1944 and in 1945 but that is again after German collapse in Stalingrad-Kursk.

And before victory.

Short summary of Lend-Lease to Soviets is like this in Wiki : 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[27] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[28] and 1.75 million tons of food.

Let's look at overall tank production in the war : Soviets 100k, USA 87k. I must also add that of 7k US tanks sent, only 4k was of Sherman Type, other were older tanks.

Aircraft production : USA 324k, Soviets 150k.

Just compare aircraft and tank production volume of Lend-Lease to overall production of Soviets. Yes, importance of Lend-Lease was mainly trucks + raw materials + food. I mentioned truck issue above, for raw materials and food, i accept that American help was quite important but i don't think Soviets would have lost without that help after 1943. Soviet didn't severely lack any material either ( like German lack of oil ) so that they collapse without US help.

Here is Lend-Lease volumes by year :

1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.
1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Artic.
1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Artic.
1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Artic.
1945 3,673,819t (last shipments 20 Sept) of which: 44,513 Persian Gulf, 2,079,320 Soviet Far East, 726,725 North Russia, 680,723 Black Sea, 142,538 Soviet Artic.

So, we need to scale overall numbers listed in Wiki by those shipment tonnes to obtain approximate numbers shipped until Kursk.

And one final additional source for shipments : http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/lendlse.htm

And again, here's the problem. Without the Western Allies, not only do the Soviets have massive shortages (which you seem to be wilfully ignoring), but the Germans also have much more to commit. The net effect is that the imbalance of resources is largely equalised, and the Soviets crippled in a number of key areas (av gas, explosives, electronics, railways).

 

[Jos de trol]

also germany needed a lot of men because of the whole agricultural dealio