Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?
- Thread starter Magnus Imperator Rex
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That would also allow heavy ships and a significant amount of U-Boats to stop patrolling arctic ocean, but if I am not mistaken (I probably am mistaken but anyway) wasn't the Persian corridor pretty hard to control and move troops?
I don't know about control, but it was just a long supply chain. Moving by Murmansk was shorter, but far more dangerous.
I don't think Axis naval presence in the Persian Gulf amounted to much. Unless I'm missing something.
I don't think Axis naval presence in the Persian Gulf amounted to much. Unless I'm missing something.
Nah you aren't missing anything, Germany had a really poor (and excused) presence in the indian sea, doubt the subs could even reach the Persian gulf without refueling from Japanese bases in Singapore etc. I know they made trips Germany->Japan but I doubt they went in the Persian gulf, I think they just went straight across the indian ocean.Besides even if they could reach it, the submarines wouldn't have merely enough fuel to make it worth their limited time there.
Well, the whole Eastern Front was doomed to fail only because the Axis belligerents failed to realize the actual possibility that they were going up against the entire Soviet Union. After all, the much used phrase "kick in the front door and the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down" generally does encompass the illusion the Axis side had in winning a short conflict thinking the Soviet Union would break up in the face of such swift losses. Instead, it was the reverse in that the Axis belligerents "led" by Germany as a dislocated and poorly synergistic body with draconian trade policies could not hold up under the pressure of a united response of the entire Soviet Union that virtually had every race, ethnicity, and creed fight for its cause.
After all, Germany had under 1 year after the French capitulation to try to whip up a coalition and rationalize continental Europe under its leadership and attack the Soviet Union which was like 3-4 European Unions across. Also, the Soviet Union had more than 10-20 years to work in achieving that unity outside of Western Europe. In fact, the whole unity aspect was long in the making and generally overlooked by most Western sources. I mention this only IF you consider since the Tsarist Empire (and maybe even going further back to the Khanates) also had achieved this level of operability within its borders of various groups fighting under the banner of one empire or union over another. Though if we wanted to finger at least some date to bring it into perspective, we could say that since the Treaty of Nystad in 1721 the Russian "Empire" provided somewhat of a framework and stable forerunner that was the early "glue" so to speake that roughly managed to hold up through a socialist revolution and under the drive of Barbarossa.
It did in fact happen. The Germans made several attempts to capture Leningrad. The latest was at the same time as Stalingrad. It failed.
The MAIN reason Leningrad was not relieved in 1942, was Manstein's 11th Army, transferred into the region after the fall of Sevastopol. It was sent into combat as soon as its troops got off the trains, to stem the Soviet offensive in the area. As for Murmansk - an offensive there would have been extremely hard. No road network for maneuver, head-on attacks - losses would have rivaled those at Stalingrad, for even less meaningful gains.
If the Germans had enough forces and supplies to actually pull off a successful Case Blue then Stalingrad certainly had to be taken. But that's just one of the key points they had to take - losing Rostov for instance would have spelled doom for 1st Panzer Army.
In short, it's not wrong to say that Stalingrad was a key target. It certainly was. But it's just one of very, very many targets that had to be taken for Case Blue to succeed. Just because the battle at Rostov wasn't as fierce and famous doesn't mean it was any less important. Indeed, had the Russians retaken Rostov a few weeks earlier we'd be talking about how both 6th Army and 1st Panzer Army were destroyed in Uranus, not just 6th at Stalingrad.
Limited offensives also work, since the Soviet defensive strategy hadn't been properly worked out yet in 1942. The Red Army simply did not believe that they should go on the strategic defensive at this point; and it was the thrashing they received in the initial phases of Case Blue that finally convinced them to revise their manual from 2 pages worth of defensive tactics to being nearly half the manual (literally, Glantz wrote a paper on this)
- 1
You are too damn serious! And i do not care about my former soviet background, or about SU as general. My motherland is Russia, not overambitios communist empire. And you are entirely missing the point of my previous post. The point is - big screw up of First and Second echelons of Red Army lies in poor military strategic and tactical planning and execution of this plans, not in quality or quantity of weapons. If we agree on this point, the whole discussion about T-26, Pz-I or any other tanks become irrelevant.
Secondly, you are too damn rude. I'm not ranting, i'm trying to DISCUSS the matter, T-28 with 37 mm gun equals Vikings with horned helmets and Gustav Adolf SM - impossbility! And neither i'm teaching anyone, it's beyond my qualification. But i sincerely doubt that my explanation will be understood by you.
Main combat tank in 1941 - what do you mean by it? No country in WWII used this term. Obviously you do not refer to main battle tank. If my guessing is right, you refer to medium/heavy tanks, but in june 1941 only Pz-IV may be considered medium, but sadly (for germans) it is not equal to T-34 and BT-7 - main armament is shortbarreled 75 mm designed to smash fortifications and supporting infantry with very poor velocity and armor penetration.
Tank were not classified in 1941 as main or main combat, tanks are tanks. In Germany they were used in panzer (tank) divisions according to specific divisional structure. And German pz-divisions contained significant amounts of Pz-I and Pz-II. Therefore - they are main combat tanks!
About Pz-II superiority over T-26. Plz, try to use some numbers (gun caliber, armor, engine hp). You will be suprised! Small clue - try to compare their primary armament.
What's your point in stating, that they are best know western experts? For example, herr Bieber is one of the best known singers in the world. Did it make him expert on matters of music? Best known and professional is two different things, try to understand it, plz. And secondly, why are you so rude? If my opinion differs from yours - it's great, strenght in diversity! And thirdly - my debating skills is of no concern or judgement of you. Look after yourself, friend.
Thanks for reply. Short, on topic and polite. It's good to debate things with good people.
back to topic - no they were not relegated away in June 1941. And superiority of Pz-III against T-26 in summer 1941 is debateble. Roughly the same punch (45 against 50 mm), slightly better armor on Pz-III, far greater potential for upgrade and by far better tankframe for impovements. But at June 1941 it is irrelevant. And Pz-IV were not eqiuipped for anti-tank duties with short-barreled gun with low velocity.
To sum up - Werhmacht was capable to knock on Moscow and Leningrad doors not because T-26 was obsolete, or KV-1 or T-34 "were not available in large numbers at the time the invasion commenced" or any other technical factor. The key factor was bad leadership and bad unit cohesion. IMHO.
- 1
It seems many miss what in my eyes is the main problem.
Many valid points came across - but the Germans had a very deep internal dispute where Hitler was ordering X and the Generals wanting Y.
Germany -wasted- pratically the whole month of August doing little to nothing in terms of gaining grounds because Hitler wanted to lock Ukraine soviet forces meanwhile the Generals on the front wanted to push for Moscow (at least Army Gruppe Center).
Other points which are quite valid are logistics - the Germans had issues to keep their spearheads supplied - and had also to take breaks in their advance to refuel and restock.
Every few days of respite served the Soviets to replenish their reserves - with pretty much they had at avail and could be mustered.
In 1941 Soviet production was ridiculous, their factories on the move and most of their armies lacking proper commanding officers due to the effect of the Purge still, Stalin was dominating the war effort with many "stand fast" orders (What Hitler did himself later with the Germans). The cards for Germany were all there - and the UK was not providing a rich lend lease yet, not to speak of the US.
And it is widely known that without the Lend Lease from UK and USA, the Soviets would have hardly managed to get their army back, up and running (lack of lots of things. And German evaluation of Ukraine feeding the Soviets were right. In fact USA litterally fed, gave shoes and trucks and railroads and trains to the Red Army). But that came into play later.
Germany lost their Barbarossa in Winter 41 - they lost too much time to cripple the Soviets; including the conquest of Moscow which could have disembowled their political solidity. Stalin centralized in himself the lead of the war - in the good and the bad (hence post-war there was the personality culture for him).
The second thing that happened in Winter 41 was the declaration of war to USA. Soviets had manpower, but their factories were limited. Soviets managed also to mobilize manpower, because meanwhile Germany had to do everything itself - and had to recur to forced labor; Soviets simply could strip farms from people as the US got them food; factories which were to produce trucks (not that they had many due to a reform of Stalin pre-war) or other goods converted entirely into armament factories.
Germany had a window of time to -win- against Russia, and they failed doing that.
Russia though could not beat Germany itself without outter assistance - and if Russia was to face Germany one on one - well the outcome would be quite different.
Many valid points came across - but the Germans had a very deep internal dispute where Hitler was ordering X and the Generals wanting Y.
Germany -wasted- pratically the whole month of August doing little to nothing in terms of gaining grounds because Hitler wanted to lock Ukraine soviet forces meanwhile the Generals on the front wanted to push for Moscow (at least Army Gruppe Center).
Other points which are quite valid are logistics - the Germans had issues to keep their spearheads supplied - and had also to take breaks in their advance to refuel and restock.
Every few days of respite served the Soviets to replenish their reserves - with pretty much they had at avail and could be mustered.
In 1941 Soviet production was ridiculous, their factories on the move and most of their armies lacking proper commanding officers due to the effect of the Purge still, Stalin was dominating the war effort with many "stand fast" orders (What Hitler did himself later with the Germans). The cards for Germany were all there - and the UK was not providing a rich lend lease yet, not to speak of the US.
And it is widely known that without the Lend Lease from UK and USA, the Soviets would have hardly managed to get their army back, up and running (lack of lots of things. And German evaluation of Ukraine feeding the Soviets were right. In fact USA litterally fed, gave shoes and trucks and railroads and trains to the Red Army). But that came into play later.
Germany lost their Barbarossa in Winter 41 - they lost too much time to cripple the Soviets; including the conquest of Moscow which could have disembowled their political solidity. Stalin centralized in himself the lead of the war - in the good and the bad (hence post-war there was the personality culture for him).
The second thing that happened in Winter 41 was the declaration of war to USA. Soviets had manpower, but their factories were limited. Soviets managed also to mobilize manpower, because meanwhile Germany had to do everything itself - and had to recur to forced labor; Soviets simply could strip farms from people as the US got them food; factories which were to produce trucks (not that they had many due to a reform of Stalin pre-war) or other goods converted entirely into armament factories.
Germany had a window of time to -win- against Russia, and they failed doing that.
Russia though could not beat Germany itself without outter assistance - and if Russia was to face Germany one on one - well the outcome would be quite different.
- 1
- 1
1. If Army Group Centre didn`t go for Ukraine, who would have encircle Russian big concentrations of army there? Or just leave them there? As you said Ukraine was important for food reasons. So it is either leave foods to Russians and go for Moscow or go for Ukraine and make Moscow their next target.
2. Russians managed to stop Germans in their way to Moscow (not even in Moscow) without Land Lease. they could counter attacked and pushed back Germans without Land Lease. Land Lease comes to effect around 1943 by that time Red Army is organized enough to stop Germans at Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad (even destroyed their army in winter 1942).
3. Germans did everything to Moscow in winter 1941, all they could accomplish is to close the distance to Moscow. There was not even a street fighting in Moscow yet, before they pushed back.
4. Lend Lease in 1941 and 1942 is negligible. Real effect came to effect in 1943 and by that time Germans have no chance to win. Without Land Lease Russians would still be in Berlin around 1947 and few million more casualties. So Lend Lease greatly saved the time and lives of Russians.
5. You are right that Soviet Union did total mobilization. If you see footage of Russian WW2, the most factory workers were women, old people and children, Besides average Soviet citizen is more accustomed to shortages and bad experiences (if you could survive WW1, revolutions, civil war, hunger, purge, collectivization you will be much more hardened), so WW2 is just another bad event in their lives.
6. in 1941,1942 Soviets had to do everything by themselves (fight, produce etc) because as I said before that Land Lease equipments didn`t come in large numbers before 1943.
in One v One germans win? Don`t make me laugh. If you want to level the field, remove the back stabbing Barbarossa from the equation. In the end surprise bonus from Barbarossa enabled the Germans to reach Moscow, conquer most productive SU regions, destroy 3-4 million Red Army soldiers. Without that bonus Russians would have more Industry (even in 1942 after loss of big territories, Soviet Industry was bigger than German), more manpower and 3-4 milion more soldiers.
- 3
- 1
Tanks which were used in combat. For example, Pz was not a combat tank in 1941: most of them were either converted to other vehicles or were used as scouts. They were not expected to go in combat.
The Pz III was also a medium.
Yes, Pz III and Pz IV were in fact superior. So vastly superior that the examination of the acquired Pz III from the Polish campaign forced the Soviets to to rush the unfinished T-34 into production asap, rather than going what became the T-34M project.
Yes, that was the design. In 1941, the Pz III was adequate for AT role, while the Pz IV provided the heavier HE support.
Since you seem to reject actual sources (like Zaloga), it's meaningless. But I'll try. The Pz-II was more likely to see the target, compared to T-26, more likely to hit. With radio, it was also far better coordinated as a unit (the few T-26 which had a radio, had a very visible "halo" antenna which made them obvious targets).
This means that they are recognised among the historical science community, as they have produced high quality research.
False analogy
Yes. And Zaloga and Glantz are professional, Glantz being a former researcher on Soviet military for the US military, and Zaloga working for the IDA.
Hmm, let me think... "it's 2015 and everyone is offended by something".
Facts cannot be rude or insolent.
As long as you facts to back it up. If you don't, fairy tales add nothing to the discussion.
More ad hominems. Keep trying.
- 2
- 1
The German offensive ground to a halt in Smolensk, with very slow advance and high casualties. They tried to push for Moscow and failed. The turn to Ukraine to clear a flank was the only thing really possible.
ok, fair point, but they were included in panzer division, and at the same time they sere not supposed to be used in combat, according to your logic. Strange - is it not?
With mass about 20 t and 37-mm KwK 36 it is definitely a medium. Just like French B1 and B1bis is heavy. Keep trying, mate!
Pz III superior to T-34 and Pz-IV superior to KV-1 and KV-2, i assume? And about T-34M, only 5 hulls were built, this project was not a replacement, only an alternative/improvement. And, if you please, state your source for your statement (no rudeness on my part, if you right, it will be very interesting to me)
Pz-III with KwK 36 is adequate, and essentially the same gun 3,7 cm PAK is "Heeresanklopfgerät". How is that??? About heavy HE support - no objections.
It's one hell of a misunderstamding. It will be infinetly stupid of me to reject sources. But Zaloga is not an "actual" source, he is war historian, not an archive or actual combatant. And even actual partisipation is not equal with truth. For example, in his post war memos, Marshal Konev states, that Tigers were equiped with 100-mm main gun. But Tiger gun caliber was 88-mm. Actual source - yes, truth - no. My point is - no blind acceptance of "actual sources' and "famous experts" - they are men, just like us, and men made mistakes, not intentional or intentional (you know it as i, WWII history is very, how should i say it, contoversial. And "experts" tend to monopolise truth). On matters of Pz-II vs. T-26 - 20-vv gun with ballistic similar to AT-rifle vs 45-mm high velocity gun - it is clear win for T-26. Optics and radio on Pz-II were superior, but coupled with very weak cannon and stopgap desigh (mentiond above herr Huderian requisitioned then from general Lutz merely as a stopgap before actual tanks, like Pz-III and Pz-IV may be produced in sufficient quality, read his memos, it's an "actual source")
Why is that? Because you say so? He is widely recognised in commercial aspect among music community. Gold or platinum albums or some s*it. Just like Zaloga and Glantz. Nothing false here!
It was 9GAG JOKE! Nothing more. And definetely not the ground to make false assumptions about my skills. We are debating here, everyone has their opinion, you, me, our fellow forum users. If my opinion differs, it means nothing. Or you are a relative or friend of Zaloga and Glantz? (it's a joke, for **ck's sake)
If i dont miss anything, i'm making statements, you are making statements, both of us do not make references to pages of specific military or historical books, as should be right and proper , and suddenly it's only me who "add nothing to the discussion with fairy tales". How do you come to this conclusion???
Last edited:
- 1
I'm not as knowledgeable on the topic as others, but I think the answer could be summed up in one word:
overconfidence
overconfidence
Yes a very small number were included in Panzer divisions (as scout tanks). The rest were either, training vehicles, supply vehicles or converted into Panzerjäger I.
Yes, later in the war the 45 tonne Panther was "medium" while the 45 tonne IS-2 was "heavy". It's not a weight classification, it's a usage classification.
Yes.
No, since the Pz IV of 1941 was not built with the goal of fighting other tanks in the first place.
Yes, it was a planned replacement for the T-34 mod.40, which was seen as inadequate in many areas. The project was cancelled due to the war as drops in production numbers were strictly forbidden. If you want a good source on T-34 development, there was a very good book released last year on the T-34, by Kolomiets.
Well, the 3.7cm gun was sufficient in 1941 against every Soviet tank except KV.
Yes, he is someone who worked with primary sources and produced peer-reviewed research. That research is a source.
Yes, people can make mistakes. If you feel there are mistakes in Zaloga's or Glantz's research then point them out and back with your sources. That's good science and argument. Saying "btw, plz, guys, do not quote or post references to Glantz and Zaloga, they are no better than X" is a zero evidence ad hominem attack, and is generally taken the you don't like facts, so prefer not to hear them.
Well, no since the gun has to actually hit the target.
The cannon was sufficient to hit the targets it was to hit: enemy infantry and light tanks. The tank abilities are very little to do with it nominal armor and gun penetration. The T-26 was a tank which began production in 1928, as a local adaptation of the post WW1 Vickers 6-ton tank, produced by a country which was not fully industrialised and with a poorly trained workforce.
It's obvious. He is recognised as a singer. Not as a researcher. Thus everything he says and writes is merely his opinion.
Glantz and Zaloga are researchers, therefore what they don't just "say things", they publish peer-reviewed research. It's falsifiable. If you have better sources or make are better analysis it's possible to refute their research. But you can't just say "I don't like what they write, so don't quote them".
On a forum, we normally don't expect Harvard style references for every statement. But if you make long paragraphs with sweeping statements with not even a book name to say where you got that from, but go out of your way to explicitly name two authors you don't want to hear... Well, don't be surprised if people pick that up.
- 2
Taking Leningrad and conroling the Kirov Railway (IE Murmansk) would've done so much more for the war effort then taking the reltively unimportant city of Stalingrad. Stalingrad was only such a major target because Hitler wanted to be able to say he took the iconic city of Stalin.
From a strategic point of view, Leningrad, Moscow, and Murmansk were all more important.