NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm writing a paper on World War Two and the failure of the blitzkrieg in Russia. I am primarily looking for links to sites that might be credible resources, but discussion on the question is also welcome. Just remember, I have to write up a works cited page - and my teacher might be a little suspicious if one of the sources is "Das Presidenté Bill, of The Oppressed Peoples of Bill, NationStates." Then again, he might actually be a nation here... which would be moderately creepy.

Anywho, why did the Blitzkrieg fail in Russia - the Soviet Union certainly did suffer from a number of disadvantages, low morale from recent military purges, orders not to provoke the Germans which prevented effective reconaissance (and forbade Soviet soldiers to fire on the invaders even after Barbarossa began), superior morale amongst the more successful Wehrmacht, and better equipment and training for the Germans.

What did the Germans do wrong?
So far I've got-

Hitler's indecisiveness: The Fuhrer never made up his mind about what to do with Stalingrad for a few weeks, by which time the city had been reinforced.

Allied support: Soon after the invasion, lend-lease was extended to the Soviets.

Russian nationalism: Apparently, despite the utter hopelessness of the situation, the Russian soldiers occasionally fought with suicidal fanaticism.

German overextension: Aside from the whole two-front war thing, Germany also had to deal with unrest in occupied territories, especially territories that Mussolini had invaded. Il Duce seems to have done more for the allied cause than even the Allies, because of his habit of invading countries and letting German soldiers try to pacify the vengeful conquered peoples. This could also apply locally to the German campaign in Russia -- if I am correct, Leningrad, the Caucasus region, and Moscow were all main goals of Operation Barbarossa... would it have been more prudent to play it a little more conservatively, given Russia's enormous size?

Captain America: On the front page of issue number one, he punches Hitler in the mouth. Did this loss of face cause Germans to lose faith in National Socialism and subconsciously surrender?

So please, post your thoughts, opinions, and links to the sites that validate them.

Didn't he invade in winter? I think that's why.

Nah... he started the invasion in summer, got bogged down in autumn, and let his troops freeze to death in winter.

Not to make the horror sound like a game, but much of it was like Risk. It was a numbers game. Russia had many expendible people. Without that touch of humanism, life was not very important to the Soviets. As more Russians died, more Germans died and wasted their resources in the process. Both sides ended up exhausted. And yet the people kept on going. It is something I doubt I will ever fully understand. What was it like in Leningrad or Stalingrad during the war? How could I ever come to understand that?

russia was simply to big, the tactic couldn't deal with the russia ability to withdraw further east and or simple give up territory for time, the blitzkrieg needs to work fast and with at least tactical surprise to be effective.

When you think of the shear magnitude of the task at hand, it is hardly surprising that the blitzkrieg failed in Russia. After all, tactically, it was meant to quickly over-whelm the opposition by speed and volume of attack.
It is pretty tough to over-whelm a country which has a greater land mass and a larger population, especially when you are fighting on their home turf.
It's not like they could just STOP fighting back whenever they wanted. The fact that the Germans made it as far as they did was pretty impressive.
Other then that, I think the points you made already are a pretty solid base for the argument.......'cept maybe the Captain America part.....you might wanna leave that out.

<snippage>
Captain America: On the front page of issue number one, he punches Hitler in the mouth. Did this loss of face cause Germans to lose faith in National Socialism and subconsciously surrender?

So please, post your thoughts, opinions, and links to the sites that validate them.
It's a well-documented historical fact that Hitler was just a puppet of the Red Skull, so I don't think this had much to do with it.

Seriously I think it's because Hitler use air raids combined with armour and infantry. When you do that you have to worry about friendly fire instead of bombing a city into oblivion. In the Battle of Britain this was less of an issue.

Germany was in a two front war and winter came. They didn't have the resources on hand to give the troops and so troops died. A sizable number of troop deaths on the russian front came from disease and freezing to death. Also, Hitler fought for Leningrad and Stalingrad. Had he just smashed the cities and the bridges and then made a quick push towards Moscow things might have turned out differently. Instead he stood and fought and so Stalin threw millions of men at him.

Germany was in a two front war and winter came. They didn't have the resources on hand to give the troops and so troops died. A sizable number of troop deaths on the russian front came from disease and freezing to death. Also, Hitler fought for Leningrad and Stalingrad. Had he just smashed the cities and the bridges and then made a quick push towards Moscow things might have turned out differently. Instead he stood and fought and so Stalin threw millions of men at him.
Hilter wanted Leningrad and Stalingrad more for symbolic reasons, didn't he? I was under the impression that by taking the cities bearing the names of the only (up to that point) Soviet presidents Hitler believed that he could demoralise the nation.

It essentially boils down to Hitler's poor leadership, overconfidence, bad timing, and bad planning, which were all inter-related.

1 Leadership: Hitler made all the major decisions (including making Moscow a secondary goal to the Ukraine).
2 Overconfidence: The whole "kick in the door and Russia collapses" idea. Hitler saw the success of the wermacht and the failure of the winter war, and though Operation Barbarossa would be easy. He thought the Wermacht would be in Moscow in a matter of weeks.
3 Bad Timing: The delay caused by Yugoslavia cut 5 weeks into the Russian summer. Moving on the Ukraine before driving on to Moscow further delayed things.
4 Bad Planning: The lack of preperation for a long campaign, and especially for the Russian winter was fatal.


(And don't put it down to Stalingrad! The blitkrieg failed when the Germans were stopped at Moscow, well before Stalingrad.)

It essentially boils down to Hitler's poor leadership, overconfidence, bad timing, and bad planning, which were all inter-related.

1 Leadership: Hitler made all the major decisions (including making Moscow a secondary goal to the Ukraine).
2 Overconfidence: The whole "kick in the door and Russia collapses" idea. Hitler saw the success of the wermacht and the failure of the winter war, and though Operation Barbarossa would be easy. He thought the Wermacht would be in Moscow in a matter of weeks.
3 Bad Timing: The delay caused by Yugoslavia cut 5 weeks into the Russian summer. Moving on the Ukraine before driving on to Moscow further delayed things.
4 Bad Planning: The lack of preperation for a long campaign, and especially for the Russian winter was fatal.


(And don't put it down to Stalingrad! The blitkrieg failed when the Germans were stopped at Moscow, well before Stalingrad.)
The Ukraine is strategically more important than Moscow because leaders and government can be moved. Arrable farmland cannot.

Hilter wanted Leningrad and Stalingrad more for symbolic reasons, didn't he? I was under the impression that by taking the cities bearing the names of the only (up to that point) Soviet presidents Hitler believed that he could demoralise the nation.

Welll Stalingrad wasn't in the beginning. Operation Blue was aimed securing Stalingrad as part of the move on the Caucasus oil fields, which Germany desparately needed.

(And also a note: the Battle of Stalingrad, as I said above, took place almost a year after the blitzkrieg had been stopped at Moscow.)

The Ukraine is strategically more important than Moscow because leaders and government can be moved. Arrable farmland cannot.

The Ukraine might arguably have been strategically more important than Moscow in the long run (don't forget the industrial capacity). However, in the conduct of the war, it should have been the primary goal.
Taking Moscow would have meant the a serious defeat for (and quite possibly the destruction of) the Red Army. As it was, Zhukov lost almost half the defenders (700,000 out of 1.5 million).
Taking Moscow first, then securing the Ukraine on the flank would have been the best choice. The Battle of Moscow was the first major defeat for the Germans and stopped the momentum needed top carry forth the blitzkrieg. Without that strategic momentum, the blitzkrieg was dead. It was also a major morale boost for the Red Army.

Did the Soviet production system have a lot to do with it? They rolled those t-34 tanks off like crazy and outnumbered the germans.

Did the Soviet production system have a lot to do with it? They rolled those t-34 tanks off like crazy and outnumbered the germans.

They sure did. But it took a while. At the start only 10% of the Red Army's tanks were T-34s. It wasn't until around mid '43 that the numbers got up to around 50%, IIRC.

sheer manpower, land mass, and the russian winter (one of the deadliest genrals of all time)

Did a bit of looking around. Production of T-43s got up to speed in '42 and peaked in '43. But, again, that was after the blitzkrieg was stopped. So a definitive no.

It also didn't help any that when the russians were pushed back they destroyed everything they left behind, includeing any shelter, farmlands, and such. Then when the Germans advanced they were exposed, all they could do was put up make-shift buildings and as the winter hit, with extremely cold temps and low amounts of shelters that could keep the soldiers from dying of exposure, the germans lost great numbers.

Part of the problem(or saving grace depending on point f view),in my opinion, was the over-confidence of the Nazis. They had won quick victories to that point and expected to do so again. I don't think, at least initially, they were prepared for a prolonged struggle.

A second difficulty was presented by the condition of transportation facilities within the USSR. In western Europe the nazis were able to use existing roads and railways to move troops and supplies. In the USSR that proved more difficult because the Soviet infrastucture was different and less developed. That robbed the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Nazis of thier biggest advantage, speed. The Nazis had used the speed at which thier forces were able to move to overcome a disadvantage in man-power and couldn't do so as effectively in the USSR.

There was also the almost miraculous relocation of Soviet industry to the East, out of the reach of the Nazis. New factories were quickly built and old equipment moved.

The determination of the resitance of the Soviets can't be discounted either. Faced with stagering losses and stunning defeats early on, they fought on and endured. The brutal treatment of soldier and civilian alike in Nazi-occupied Russia no doubt bolstered thier determination.

Barbarossa was originally planned as a relatively brief summer campaign, and it worked pretty darn well in the beginning. But for various reasons, the German advance was delayed several weeks. Then came the rainy autumn and trucks and tanks kept getting stuck in the mud. The Germans were getting stretched thin and unable to properly secure their overextended supply lines through occupied territory.

Also, a lot of supplies never got where they were needed because the trains that could have carried them were busy carrying the "Undesirables" (Jews, gypsies, etc) to the extermination camps.

So, the Wehrmacht got bogged down in the mud of the Russian autumn, they were short of supplies, and then the Russian winter came while a good lot of German units still had only their summer gear...

Part of the problem(or saving grace depending on point f view),in my opinion, was the over-confidence of the Nazis. They had won quick victories to that point and expected to do so again. I don't think, at least initially, they were prepared for a prolonged struggle.

A second difficulty was presented by the condition of transportation facilities within the USSR. In western Europe the nazis were able to use existing roads and railways to move troops and supplies. In the USSR that proved more difficult because the Soviet infrastucture was different and less developed. That robbed the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Nazis of thier biggest advantage, speed. The Nazis had used the speed at which thier forces were able to move to overcome a disadvantage in man-power and couldn't do so as effectively in the USSR.

There was also the almost miraculous relocation of Soviet industry to the East, out of the reach of the Nazis. New factories were quickly built and old equipment moved.

The determination of the resitance of the Soviets can't be discounted either. Faced with stagering losses and stunning defeats early on, they fought on and endured. The brutal treatment of soldier and civilian alike in Nazi-occupied Russia no doubt bolstered thier determination.


Mostly what I covered above. But, as I touched on, the factories weren't up and running until '42, by which time the blitzkrieg had already been stopped.

Also, a lot of supplies never got where they were needed because the trains that could have carried them were busy carrying the "Undesirables" (Jews, gypsies, etc) to the extermination camps.

In addition, this (and treatment of other Russians, especially the shooting of large numbers of refugees) was a boost to Red Army morale in a way. Initially, many Russians welcomed German liberation from the Soviet government. But when they saw what the Germans were doing, it turned most of them against the Germans.

As commented elsewhere, an important factor was the size of the russian army. Another important element was the ability of the russian commanders to construct formidable earthworks and defences. Russian units would be assigned to a defence post and would be told ' Keep this to the last man '. If they tried to retreat then regiments of NKVD would shoot them. The russian defenders knew what to expect if they defied Stalin's orders, this explains why they were fanatical defenders of the land around Moscow.

As seen in:
http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/dates.html#1941
This shows how quickly the cities and land were captured. There must have been protocols and orders to carry out for each city and province captured. Thousands of bureaucrats trying to produce reports and quantify what was gained. The sheer amount of work would have overwhelmed the wehrmacht and occupying civil forces. Given the backlog in the system and the effects of the winter it is not surprising that the attack stopped after 10 days.


June 22nd - Operation Barbarossa - Germany invades Soviet Union.
June 22nd - Italy and Rumania declare war on Soviets.
June 23rd - Hungary and Slovakia declare war on Soviets.
June 26th - Finland declares war on Soviets.
June 28th - German Army captures Minsk.
July 15th - Germans capture Smolensk.
August 16th - Germans capture Novogrod.
September 5th - German army occupies Estonia.
September 15th - Siege of Leningrad starts.
September 19th - Kiev captured by Germans.
October 16th - Soviet Union moves government to Kuibyshev.
October 24th - Kharkov falls to Germans.
November 3rd - Germans capture Kursk.
November 22nd - Germans captue Rostov.
November 25th - Germans attack Moscow.
December 5th - Germans halt attack on Moscow.
December 7th - Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
December 7th - Japanese declare war on USA.
December 7th - Japanese invade Siam and Malaya.
December 8th - Allies (except Soviets) declare war on Japan.
December 11th - Germany declares war on USA.

Has anyone noticed how climates always tilt to the extreme during conflict, Russian winter was horrible that year, the summer was dryer and the fall was wetter.

Anywho, you have to understand, all this mechanized stuff was the showy flashy kind, something to the effect of 2/3 of the artillery was horse drawn, (Soldat - Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936 - 1949 - Siegfried Knappe with Ted Brusaw)

I'd consider weapons a secondary effect, when you have an army reliant upon flexibility (like Napoleon) dragged down by size and need for supplies (like Napoleon's le Grande Armee! {sp}) you're kind of screwed. However the first T-34 had a hell of a shock effect, ( I can't remember the source, sorry) but it cut 6 miles through the German lines where it ran out of ammunition and was eventually destroyed (thanks to slanted instead of flat armor primarily). However, as was stated, that was after the blitzkrieg

Another side note, many consider this attack the reason Russia became a credible threat as factories were rushed out East of the Ural mountains (walls were built long after the factories were there in some cases.) and lost factory equipment was replaced with more modern stuff.

Also, Russia has this wonderful ability to trade space for time, which would cause someone's supply lines to become far overextended if they rely on momentum to have a successful attack.

Finally, if your tactics are to hit fast and shock someone, then rip through cities, factories, and out into fields where tanks are useful, the shock of house to house and heavy harrasment will certainly screw you. Plus the Russians would burn supplies they couldn't carry, forcing the Wermacht to be dependent on imported supplies as opposed to living off the land. Say what you will about modern food, but C-rations were the best out there, and they sucked, were too heavy, tasted bad, don't fill you up, and were bulky. I'd probably carry 3 pounds per day of marching, with a gallon of water in summer, so 11lbs to hump one day... and yes, I speak from experience on the marching with C-rats.

Sorry that's sooo long... BTW!! if your teacher wants me to verify any of this, have them E-mail me at secret_seas@hotmail.com I'll find the sources if it is that important.

The main reason that the German army's attack stalled was a list of things:

1) Hitler delayed the attack by 4 weeks against the advice of his advisors
2) Hitler failed to supply his troops with winter clothing
3) As the German Armies advanced supply lines became too long and it was harder to supply men and fuel
4) The Russian's used a scorched-earth tactics, leaving behind nothing the germans might use
5) Hitlers idiocy in not falling back and establishing a stable defensive line for winter and to take control of his new conquered territory.
6) Failed to go for a bigger target than Moscow, Russia's oil fields. The mian attack was aimed at Moscow while a small inadequite force was sent to take the fields.
7)Lack of a long-range bomber, allowing the soviets to build hundreds of tanks out of the medium bomber range.
8) The same thing that stopped Napoleon, the Russian Winter

These are arguable the most defining factors of why the attack stalled, but all in all the blitzkrieg was a major success penetrating some 100 miles in the first day alone. Then theres all those "What If" questions, but mostly turn rhetorical more than not. As for finding a good site about the information, I suggest either historychannel.com or go search for it in google.

The blitzkried failed in Russia, because the Russians were used to having seven kinds of sh*t bombed out of them, that's why they did'nt back down.
Also, they loved their country and their leader more than anything, so to give in would to be to betray their nation, which they loved.

Has anyone noticed how climates always tilt to the extreme during conflict, Russian winter was horrible that year, the summer was dryer and the fall was wetter.

I'm pretty sure it's just coincidence, but it does seem that way.

Anywho, you have to understand, all this mechanized stuff was the showy flashy kind, something to the effect of 2/3 of the artillery was horse drawn, (Soldat - Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936 - 1949 - Siegfried Knappe with Ted Brusaw)

Yes indeed. And that made a quick intitial victory all the more important.

However the first T-34 had a hell of a shock effect, ( I can't remember the source, sorry) but it cut 6 miles through the German lines where it ran out of ammunition and was eventually destroyed (thanks to slanted instead of flat armor primarily). However, as was stated, that was after the blitzkrieg

Yes and no. T-34s were employed from the start. But there weren't sufficient numbers for them to start being effective until October.

On October 5th 1941, in the Kamenewo area, the Russians launched their first counter-attack mass using KV and T34 tanks, stopping the 4th Panzerdivision in its drive to capture Mtsensk.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/t3476/t3476.htm

The first T-34/76A Model 1940 was delivered to the Red Army in June 1940. When Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 22nd 1941, the production of the T-34 had not reached far enough to employ sufficient numbers to the Red Army. (1.225 T-34/76 had been built by KhPZ and STZ by June 22nd 1941).
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5289

Say what you will about modern food, but C-rations were the best out there, and they sucked, were too heavy, tasted bad, don't fill you up, and were bulky. I'd probably carry 3 pounds per day of marching, with a gallon of water in summer, so 11lbs to hump one day... and yes, I speak from experience on the marching with C-rats.

I'm curious why you prefer the c-rats?

The only complaint I have with your list is this.

6) Failed to go for a bigger target than Moscow, Russia's oil fields. The mian attack was aimed at Moscow while a small inadequite force was sent to take the fields.

The original plan was a knock out blow to Moscow, but Hitler decided to detour and take the Ukraine first.
The oil fields could have been taken after the main force of the Red Army was defeated at Moscow.
(But they certainly were more important than the Ukraine.)

Hitler didn't consider that the Russians would hold out that long. Actually, the Germans were killing more Russians than they originally thought were around in the first place. They also didn't manage to destroy important industrial centers and failed to seize the oil fields in the Caucasus. These are the main reasons I know of.

An interesting note about Stalingrad. If Hitler had directed his forces to create a blockade and encircle the city, cutting it off from reinforcements, wouldn't he have had enough men and armor to send a much better attack force down to the oil fields rather than throwing them into the meat grinder where mobility was limited? Not to mention that the Russians had some pretty effective artillery, Katyushas included.

An interesting note about Stalingrad. If Hitler had directed his forces to create a blockade and encircle the city, cutting it off from reinforcements, wouldn't he have had enough men and armor to send a much better attack force down to the oil fields rather than throwing them into the meat grinder where mobility was limited?

If Hitler had stuck to the plan, it most likely wouldn't have happened that way. But when he changed the plans, no.


The offensive opened in June, took the Russians by surprise, and began to record successes in the old blitzkrieg style, which made Hitler overly optimistic. On 23 July, the Fuhrer issued Directive 49 abandoning the step-by-step conquest of the south, starting with Stalingrad. He now intended to carry out two simultaneous and diverging attacks on Stalingrad and the Caucasus. Hitler was unmoved by his generals' warnings that their forces were not strong enough to carry both objectives at the same time.
http://www.stalingrad.com.ru/history/german_army.htm


Not to mention that the Russians had some pretty effective artillery, Katyushas included.

Yep.

5) Hitlers idiocy in not falling back and establishing a stable defensive line for winter and to take control of his new conquered territory.

This is a myth. Some people think that Hitler should have ordered a general retreat when the german army faced utter hopelessness. Alot of their soldiers ran around in summer clothes and froze to death, their equipment froze to the ground, they were not prepared and moral reached an alltime low. Some soldiers and generals began to panic, and if Hitler had said "everybody run the wrong way, hurry, we're in a horrible situation so RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111one" then it is most likely that the entire german front would have collapsed, and the heavy equipment that was frozen to the ground would have been left behind so the soviets could salvage it. Think about it, panicy soldiers, panicy generals, somehow a panicy hitler would help that? Heh. The best thing Hitler could do in such a horrible situation that they found themselves in, was to tell them to sit tight and not abandon their equipment, and try to get some winter supplies up to the troops, which is what he did. Anyone still running the wrong way get shot.

russia was simply to big, the tactic couldn't deal with the russia ability to withdraw further east and or simple give up territory for time, the blitzkrieg needs to work fast and with at least tactical surprise to be effective.

Bingo. Combine the willingness and ability of Russia to absorb massive losses, plus the ability to trade space for time as no other nation could, plus Hitler's overconfidence so that he didn't fully supply his troops, and you you get disaster.

5) Hitlers idiocy in not falling back and establishing a stable defensive line for winter and to take control of his new conquered territory.

This is a myth. Some people think that Hitler should have ordered a general retreat when the german army faced utter hopelessness. Alot of their soldiers ran around in summer clothes and froze to death, their equipment froze to the ground, they were not prepared and moral reached an alltime low. Some soldiers and generals began to panic, and if Hitler had said "everybody run the wrong way, hurry, we're in a horrible situation so RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111one" then it is most likely that the entire german front would have collapsed, and the heavy equipment that was frozen to the ground would have been left behind so the soviets could salvage it. Think about it, panicy soldiers, panicy generals, somehow a panicy hitler would help that?

Not what Thrashia said at all.

Heh. The best thing Hitler could do in such a horrible situation that they found themselves in, was to tell them to sit tight and not abandon their equipment, and try to get some winter supplies up to the troops,

Which is what Thrashia suggested.

which is what he did.

Incorrect. The Germans were advancing as late as Nov. 27, just prior to Zhukov's counter-offensive.

Which is what Thrashia suggested.


Nope. Falling back is entirely different, reread everything.

Nope. Falling back is entirely different, reread everything.

It appears to me that you have again missed what Thrashia said, but I will wait for Thrashia to clarify.

Failed because of the Russian winter and attendant problems with the cute sporty narrow treads Panzers had that were wonderous on nice firm roads but deeply horrible in, say, snow and mud.

And no, T-34 was not effective from the start, the T-34 / 85 was. The original '34s were plagued by mechanical problems and poor crew training:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/T34.jpg

In the normal scheme of things, one does not lug around a spare transmission.

Yeah, that's a good advice you should follow.

You can't see the difference between Hitler ordering a general retreat, or in his words "Hitlers idiocy in not falling back", versus not doing so.

In the normal scheme of things, one does not lug around a spare transmission.

All too true. :D

Mind if I put that in my sig?

All too true. :D

Mind if I put that in my sig?

Go for it.

You can't see the difference between Hitler ordering a general retreat, or in his words "Hitlers idiocy in not falling back", versus not doing so.
Can you not see the difference between establishing and consolidating a defensive line and a general retereat?

1) Hitler was stupid (explains many things)
2) Russians were defending their homeland
3) Supplies could not have been transported efficiently because of different size of railroad tracks.


Edit: It is very sad that the invasion of Russia didn't go as planned. I want our Carelia back, you Russians!!

Also, they loved their country and their leader more than anything, so to give in would to be to betray their nation, which they loved.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia wonders exactly how much of this love was due to the fact that those who did not show sufficient love for their country, i.e. those who attempted to retreat, were shot by their own fellows.

This, by the way, may be another explanation for why the Blitzkrieg failed. If you have basically no hope of surviving a battle whether you fight or run, you might as well throw your all into fighting... maybe then, you can drive the enemy off before they kill you.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia wonders exactly how much of this love was due to the fact that those who did not show sufficient love for their country, i.e. those who attempted to retreat, were shot by their own fellows.

General forum is out-of character, so, um, unless you actually are the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia...

Go for it.

Thanks (and thanks - I assume that was your hand ;) ).

Can you not see the difference between establishing and consolidating a defensive line and a general retereat?

Ask yourself this question.

Ask yourself this question.

Yes, I can. The first is what Thrashia seems to have said. The second is what you seem to think Thrashia said.

Edit: It is very sad that the invasion of Russia didn't go as planned. I want our Carelia back, you Russians!!
Just move there then. Most of us don't want it back anymore. or maybe a small part, way to Ladoga and maybe Viipuri...

Posted by Daistallia 2104:
It appears to me that you have again missed what Thrashia said, but I will wait for Thrashia to clarify.

I meant that Hitler failed to stop and organize what he'd so far got under control. Not that he should have retreated. If I'd have been Hitler I would have stopped outside Moscow and sit tight, while lobbing every damn shell I had into the city. The Russians could be counted on to not make a large offensive since their past attacks were disorded and were mainly infantry which would be butchered. I then would have made small heavily armed patrols all along the border to keep the Russians off balance. Behind lines I would stabilize the Russian railroad for supply purposes. Then the day, the hour, no the minute, Winter ended I would send every thing I had in another massive Blitz preceded by stafing attacks and bombings from the air, massive artillery bombardmentsm and feints to the north and south of Moscow. Allow the Russians to get ahold of fake plans of attack then burst through and defeat the Russian Army peice-meal.

Of course I don;t have a time machine and am in not in a position to tell Hitler what an idiot he is.

Oh and thanks Daistallia for understanding what I meant.

I meant that Hitler failed to stop and organize what he'd so far got under control. Not that he should have retreated. If I'd have been Hitler I would have stopped outside Moscow and sit tight, while lobbing every damn shell I had into the city. The Russians could be counted on to not make a large offensive since their past attacks were disorded and were mainly infantry which would be butchered. I then would have made small heavily armed patrols all along the border to keep the Russians off balance. Behind lines I would stabilize the Russian railroad for supply purposes. Then the day, the hour, no the minute, Winter ended I would send every thing I had in another massive Blitz preceded by stafing attacks and bombings from the air, massive artillery bombardmentsm and feints to the north and south of Moscow. Allow the Russians to get ahold of fake plans of attack then burst through and defeat the Russian Army peice-meal.

Of course I don;t have a time machine and am in not in a position to tell Hitler what an idiot he is.

Oh and thanks Daistallia for understanding what I meant.

:)

Not to mention that the Russians had some pretty effective artillery, Katyushas included.



Yep.

They had effective artillery peices, but the way they were used cut back on their utility: the USSR was still operating on the basis of massive pre-planned artillery strikes planned by the higher echelons when other nations had realised that giving control of small barrages to the lower ranking officers actually on the ground was much more efficient.

The difference here is between Great War tactics and cominbed arms.

(This is Wyrmsvaar, btw)

This is all pretty good - I'm also going a little into the origin of Blitzkrieg tactics and why it succeeded in France, Poland, Norway - etc.

If there's anywhere I can get population and size figures for 1941 Russia as compared to the conquered nations, these also might help. I'd like to make a statement somewhere like: "The area of Russia Hitler intended to conquer was equal in size to all the nations under Nazi control combined," but I don't have any evidence to back that up.

All in all, this project's pretty easy considering the amount of time I spend watching the History Channel.

From what I remember, one of the reasons it got delayed was because some units had to be diverted to save the Italians who got bogged down in the Balkans. This delayed the invasion by 6 weeks, which meant it was late Autumn by the time they got going. THe ground was wet and muddy which slowed down the tanks advance.
They had a 600 mile front which was stretched far too thin (from the black sea up to Finland) and logistically it was impossible to maintain.
The Nazis also didn't do themselves much of a favour by viewing the Slavs as inferior and wiping the villages out as they went. A lot of these ppl were quite happy to see the Germans initially and would have been only too happy to help them against the Communists.
But once they saw the Nazis in action, this quickly changed. And they became partisans, attacking the rail-link suplying the front.
Then there was the Winter, of course. 2nd worse on record (worst one was when Napoleon invaded coincidently enough). On December 5th when the Russians counter-attacked it was -38 C. It had been under -30 for a week. At those temperatures, diesel freezes - you need to light a fire under the trucks and tanks to thaw the diesel.
And most of the fresh Russian troops (over a million) were Siberian, kept back especially for this counter-strike.
Not only were they equipped for the cold weather, more importantly they were used to it. To give you an idea of Siberian Winters, schools are only closed when it goes below -60C two days running.
So -40C would seem like a mild Winter's day to them!
Apparently dysentry killed more during that Winter than fighting did. If you dropped your pants in that weather, it would freeze before it came out. A very unpleasant thought there. Being found like that.
Lastly the Nazis were just not prepared for the immensity of Russia, the determination of the Russian ppl and the number of troops.
For example: In the weeks leading up to the December counterstike, the Nazis had captured something like 5 million men, so obviously felt confident they'd broken the back of the Russian army. The massive counter-attack shocked and demoralised the Nazis severely.
And as for the ferocity of the Russians - most units were lucky to have 1 gun between 3 and were quite willing to fight to the death. I remember reading a Nazi's eye-witness account about taking over a village after some heavy fighting. 3 days later as they were setting up the base camp they noticed a nearby broken Russian tank was slowly moving it's turret round towards their direction. When they opened it they found an injured Russian soldier inside lying next to his dead comrades. Rather than flee, he had stayed in there for 3 days in the hope of killing one more Nazi.

I had to do a similar report a few years ago for a History of Warfare paper I did at University.
Anyway, read 'Rise and Fall of the third Reich' by William Shirer. It's a good start.

Operation Barbarossa failed for a number of reasons.
1. Bad planning. The overall objectives were unrealistic for the time given, and even if they had been able to make it within the time constraints given the delay of 4 weeks that Hitler imposed on the attack (in deferance to advice from his generals) made it almost impossible. Also, the war would have continued even if the Germans had reached the Volga due to reserves and industrial bases in the Urals and Siberia.

2. The weather. The Germans believed they could finish the war by the end of the summer, again made more difficult by Hitler (see 1). The Germans were unprepared for the cold and would often attempt to insulate their uniforms with newspaper.
Weapons were also almost useless becuase the grease for the shells would have to be chipped off with a knife before it could be fired.

3. Supply lines. Blitzkrieg requires constant resupply. Due to the nature of the road and rail infrastructure in the USSR it made it almost impossible for German supplies to keep up with the spearhead of the German forces. Also, the supply lines were usually very lightly defended, making them perfect targets for Guerillas. Due to the lack of fuel for providing the troops with hot food, fuel was often used that would otherwise have been used for Tanks and other military equipment.

A website is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa for you to check sources.

(This is Wyrmsvaar, btw)

This is all pretty good - I'm also going a little into the origin of Blitzkrieg tactics and why it succeeded in France, Poland, Norway - etc.

If there's anywhere I can get population and size figures for 1941 Russia as compared to the conquered nations, these also might help. I'd like to make a statement somewhere like: "The area of Russia Hitler intended to conquer was equal in size to all the nations under Nazi control combined," but I don't have any evidence to back that up.

All in all, this project's pretty easy considering the amount of time I spend watching the History Channel.

For some real fun, do the post war history of blitzkrieg as well.
Maybe consider comparing the blitzkrieg with the Red Army's cold war doctrine, and the US's AirLand Battle and Rapid Dominance doctrines (look up the 1982 Field Manual 100-5 and Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade).

A website is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa for you to check sources.

:)
Much as I like it, Wikipedia's a good place to start looking and find what to look for elsewhere, but not a good source.

:)
Much as I like it, Wikipedia's a good place to start looking and find what to look for elsewhere, but not a good source.
I agree actually, just used the wrong wording. Perhaps "to give you an impression of what migh be important" would have been better. :)

I agree actually, just used the wrong wording. Perhaps "to give you an impression of what migh be important" would have been better. :)

No worries. I thought thst's what you meant, but just wanted to make sure.

Based on my extensive research (aka playing Call of Duty), I have concluded that the cause of German failure was primarily due to their tendency to drop life-giving health boxes upon being killed, which could add up to 25 health points to their soldiers. Additionally, 95% of German casualties can be attributed to a single Russian soldier "Alexei," a sniper/submachinegunner/tank driver who singlehandedly captured Berlin.

Hey now, don't get cocky....

The reason Hitler ultimately failed is because of the Japanese. The did not attack Russia as Russia had recently demonstrated Japan was close enough for them to bombard with land-based artillery. Russo-Japanese War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War) Even though Japan had won the war, they were wary of prolonged combat with Russia. Since Russia didn't have to split its forces over two fronts, they were able to focus their might on Germany. Japan also brought the US into the war. That added pressure to the Eastern front, which Germany had all but won already and forced ground troops to be rerouted from the Western front. That is why Hitler never sent ground troops into Britain, he was just using air power to keep the British pinned down.

I think I'll just jump in here and defend/encourage the T-34, being as I'm a tank nerd.
And for refrence, I'm using the book "The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles" by Christopher F. Foss.
Although, I'm also working off memory.

'When the T-34 first saw combat in 1941, it was easily the most advanced tank in the world, and remained in formidible front-line service when the war ended."
The T-34 was simple to produce, and on equil ground with the Germna Panzer V "Panther" which was put into service 2 years later, and in far fewer numbers.
By use of a Christie type suspension, the T-34 gained far superior cross-country performance then anything the Germans could feild to counter it, as well the T-34 had tracks nearly twice as wide as any German tank of 1941, giving it the ability to work in much softer terrain then the Germans could. This gave it the advantage durring both the winter and spring when the ground was either covered in deepsnow, or thick mud, both of which stopped German armor from being very effective.
Ontop of that the T-34 used a Diesel engine, a new idea at the time, which allowed it to work in much colder temperatures (Petrol freezes much faster the diesel). The engine also gae it a longer range and higher speed compared to German tanks of simmilar mass, which enabled it to be much more effective in the vast expanse of Russia.
The large downfall of the T-34, as was mentioned earlier, was the transmission system, which it must be noted that this problem was never really solved. Many T-34's went into battle with spare transmissions strapped to their engine decks. This however did not hamper the mobility and use of the T-34 as much as would be expected, espically considering that they were easy to produce and use.
The frontal slopped armor of the T-34 was equivilant to 75mm of flat, vertical steel plate, and thus was "virtually invinvible in 1941."
Pre-1941 models were equipped with a L-11 Model 1938 rifled 76.2mm main gun, however this was replaced in 1941 by the F-34, which gave the T-34 a considerable range advantage over the German tanks it faced the early part of the war.
The most serious flaw in the T-34 (more serious then the transmission by far) was the Turret, early models were very cramped, and required the commander to fire the main gun as well. This meant that ontop of directing the crew and coordinating the tank with the rest of the unit, the commander also had to aim and fire the main gun (Not an easy task), which greatly reduced the combat efficiency of the T-34.

"When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in July 1941, the T-34's appearance caused considerable concern. On 8 July 1941, in what is often considered the Wehrmacht's first encounter with the new tank, a lone T-34 cut a 14km swath of destruction through the 17th Panzer Division, destroying 40 armoured vehicles. However, there were too few to make a difference to the German advance, and those avalible were hampered by poor standards in Soviet Tank crews."
The T-34 began to be avalible in the thousands by 1943, and durring the Battle for Kursk in July 1943, the bulk of Soviet Armoured forces in the area were T-34s. Although the Germans had Tigers in the area, the T-34's pure mass of numbers, and unconventional tactics of closing to point blank range as quickly as possible or digging in so only the turret was above ground allowed them to defeat the German forces, stopping the German offensive.
What made the T-34 so decisive in the war was sheer numbers, and although the T-34/76 model was not produced after 1943, it remained in service until after the war, and outnumbered German medium tanks three to one.

It must also be noted that other tanks the Russians had in service when the war broke out included the T-26, T-27, BT-5/6/7, T-28, T-35, T-37, T-40, KV-1, and KV-II.
Other notable tanks that were only prototypes, or rejected for service prior to the war, that were used against the German forces in smaller numbers (less then 10 per vehicle usually) included home made tanks based on tractors, the TG (Tanke Grotte) heavy tank, SMK and T-100 heavy tanks, and the T-32 prototype.
As well, massive ammounts of armoured cars, such as the BA-27, and BA-10 were used. And a large number of Assault Guns, Tank Destroyers, and Self Propelled Artillery were used by the Soviets, which allowed them to bring large ammounts of heavy fire power down into an area quickly. Stalin himself called the Red Army SP Gun units the "Red God of War".

It's the tactics, not the technology that win you the war. Ask the Vietkong.

It's the tactics, not the technology that win you the war. Ask the Vietkong.

Actually, it's both. The equipment used by the Vietcong were much better suited to the area. American equipment was not well suited to the dense brush and humid climate. As well, the M-16 specificly was not as reliable as the AK-47, ammo for the M-16 gummed up the firing mechanism which meant more cleaning, the M-16 was hard to clear, and finally it broke under heavy abuse. The AK-47 on the other hand didn't need as much cleaning, the bullets used ad more punch (Espically since they could easily penetrate trees, unlike the M-16 rounds), the AK-47 was heavier, and thus could be used as a club, was many times more reliable then the M-16, and was cheaper to boot.

Also, where the Spanish and the Aztecs fought, the Spanish had the technological advantage and the Aztecs had better tactics for the region, but the Aztecs were defeated.

It's tactics and technology that win wars, not either one alone. Every army that has forgotten this in history has been destroyed.

Daistallia 2104: sorry for not getting back on why I prefer C-rats, but the Germans had some nasty arse dried stuff, and that means you have to carry more water, and more water still to stay hydrated while carrying more water. I've hiked with dehydrated food and I carry another 3QT. of water (of course i keep a three MPH pace and take 15 minute breaks every 2.5 hours but STILL!) and an additional QT. to make up for the weight. All in all it's a few ounces of weight saved in food but 8 pounds in water for a summer march.

The Russians as I recall didn't have a real meal like that except for tins of meat and black bread. That's pronounced malnutrition :P

The Brits had decent food but not enough.

C-rats taste like crap cold, but you can make an oven out of the case they come in, and with minimal effort you can make the internal flame invisible (throw a field jacket over it<-- not literally but you get the idea) and you can eat them while marching. The tins can be readily buried and the quarter inch of solid grease that forms on top of the main course can be used as a lubricant in a pinch (and I'm only half joking about that.)

old MRE's (after C-rats) are far better if you have enough Tobasco (3000-3500 calories a bag)
the new ones taste great but only have 1000-1400 calories. (After 95[?] not quite sure on the year, but the one's now have SHAKES!!)

Dostanuot Loj:
AND BAH at you knocking the M-16, SEALs had no trouble, they just kept them real REAL clean. Force Recon had no trouble, Rangers had no trouble, LRRPs in general had no trouble, only the line doggies who were told that it was "self cleaning" and weren't issued cleaning kits had real problems. I'll admit it was crappy, but like I said, only those who didn't care for their weapon had trouble. Alas I rant. Though the AK-47 I wouldn't use for anything but supressing fire past... oh say 65 meters.

In reality during Vietnam we out-guerillad the guerilla however, lack of national support, and rediculous rules (1973 weapons were to be stored in steel CONEX lockers at night... all weapons from handguns to M-60's). No Infantryman, Ranger, Airborne, or Leg that I've met would club someone with his rifle when he could bayonet them anyway. The one 18C I've met wouldn't even dream of close in combat with a bare rifle prefferring a bayonet, a knife, or bare hands... but again I rant.

Saying Aztecs had better tactics when they had god knows how many diseases and an interesting inability to puncture the STEEL armor is kind of like saying we had better media coverage of 89-91 Persian Gulf war than the Korean war, from one perspective that's true, and from all perspective it's a moot point.

Sorry from pulling from the subject at hand. I be done now.

Daistallia 2104: sorry for not getting back on why I prefer C-rats, but the Germans had some nasty arse dried stuff, and that means you have to carry more water, and more water still to stay hydrated while carrying more water. I've hiked with dehydrated food and I carry another 3QT. of water (of course i keep a three MPH pace and take 15 minute breaks every 2.5 hours but STILL!) and an additional QT. to make up for the weight. All in all it's a few ounces of weight saved in food but 8 pounds in water for a summer march.

The Russians as I recall didn't have a real meal like that except for tins of meat and black bread. That's pronounced malnutrition :P

The Brits had decent food but not enough.

C-rats taste like crap cold, but you can make an oven out of the case they come in, and with minimal effort you can make the internal flame invisible (throw a field jacket over it<-- not literally but you get the idea) and you can eat them while marching. The tins can be readily buried and the quarter inch of solid grease that forms on top of the main course can be used as a lubricant in a pinch (and I'm only half joking about that.)

old MRE's (after C-rats) are far better if you have enough Tobasco (3000-3500 calories a bag)
the new ones taste great but only have 1000-1400 calories. (After 95[?] not quite sure on the year, but the one's now have SHAKES!!)

Ah. I thought you were saying they were better than the MREs. I'd always heard the MREs were better. I understand the French field rations are supposed be really good (I read somewhere the going rate for trade during the First Gulf war was 3 MREs to 1 French ration).


Dostanuot Loj:
AND BAH at you knocking the M-16, SEALs had no trouble, they just kept them real REAL clean. Force Recon had no trouble, Rangers had no trouble, LRRPs in general had no trouble, only the line doggies who were told that it was "self cleaning" and weren't issued cleaning kits had real problems. I'll admit it was crappy, but like I said, only those who didn't care for their weapon had trouble. Alas I rant. Though the AK-47 I wouldn't use for anything but supressing fire past... oh say 65 meters.

In reality during Vietnam we out-guerillad the guerilla however, lack of national support, and rediculous rules (1973 weapons were to be stored in steel CONEX lockers at night... all weapons from handguns to M-60's). No Infantryman, Ranger, Airborne, or Leg that I've met would club someone with his rifle when he could bayonet them anyway. The one 18C I've met wouldn't even dream of close in combat with a bare rifle prefferring a bayonet, a knife, or bare hands... but again I rant.

Saying Aztecs had better tactics when they had god knows how many diseases and an interesting inability to puncture the STEEL armor is kind of like saying we had better media coverage of 89-91 Persian Gulf war than the Korean war, from one perspective that's true, and from all perspective it's a moot point.

Sorry from pulling from the subject at hand. I be done now.

Have to agree on the M-16. But the army proccured some bad ammo, didn't they. I've also heard that some of the initial training was bad - soldiers being told it didn't need cleaning and that sort of thing.

You've got some of them, the Hitler getting punched in the face is not a good one though, since the Nazi propaganda was better than that.

Russian propaganda was the best in the world: The Russians had fierce nationalism and like you said, almost suicidal fanatiscism among their troops.

Snipers: The Russians had some of the best snipers in the world, and the best in the world, Vasilez Zaitsev. They would've considerably dropped moral and caused inexperienced officers to take to the field. With all the urban fighting in the Russian campaigns, the snipers had an advantage. Vasilez and the Russian Sniper Corps were not fictional, they did exist and were incredibly dangerous in the Russian cities which were attacked.

Russia's Climate: The Russians were prepared for and knew the dangers of the harsh Russian winters, the Germans did not. They often succumbed to cold, sluggishness, food shortage and poor moral as a result. The Russian tanks were also adapated to the Russian soil conditions, the T-34's had wider treads to cross the muddy Russian soil in autumn, the German Panzers got slowed and bogged down.

The reason Hitler ultimately failed is because of the Japanese.

Arguably a contributing factor, but it really doesn't have to do with the failure of the blitzkrieg. :)


[quote]The did not attack Russia as Russia had recently demonstrated Japan was close enough for them to bombard with land-based artillery.

Hmmm Haven't heard that before. Can you give a citation for it? Where exactly did they demonstrate it?

Russo-Japanese War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War)
Even though Japan had won the war, they were wary of prolonged combat with Russia.

Partly right. They weren't so much afraid of facing the Russians, as they were of a two front war of their own, as China was not (and never was) stablized. This is why the war in Mongolia wasn't prosecuted to the fullest. It's also why the Russians supplied the CCP/PLA guerrillas as a means of keeping the Kwangtung Army tied down, including sending a certain Georgy Zhukov (after he had defeated the Japanese at Halhin Gol) to serve as an advisor.

Since Russia didn't have to split its forces over two fronts, they were able to focus their might on Germany.

True. But of all the major powers, only Russia had the remote possibility of fighting a two front war and winning. But only the remotest.

Japan also brought the US into the war.

Incorrect. The German declaration of war on the US brought thge US in.

That added pressure to the Eastern front, which Germany had all but won already and forced ground troops to be rerouted from the Western front.

The Western front wasn't established until '44, well after the blitzkrieg had been defeated in '41.

That is why Hitler never sent ground troops into Britain, he was just using air power to keep the British pinned down.

Hitler had already lost the Battle of Britain before he invaded Russia.
And Sealion would not have succeeded at all.


Based on my extensive research (aka playing Call of Duty), I have concluded that the cause of German failure was primarily due to their tendency to drop life-giving health boxes upon being killed, which could add up to 25 health points to their soldiers. Additionally, 95% of German casualties can be attributed to a single Russian soldier "Alexei," a sniper/submachinegunner/tank driver who singlehandedly captured Berlin.

:D

I used to wargame back in college when GDW was second to AH. From all that experience, I'll say Hitler and a lack of 2-0/20 hindsight. :)

While true that the T-34 was a good tank, and mass produced, German tankers were far better trained and expieranced. I would go so far as to say that the King Tiger was a better armed and armoured tanks than the T-34 but becuase it was slow and combersome it could be out flanked easily if without infantry to support it.

And while the Russians can be said to have some good artillery don't forget the Germans had the 90mm tank killer. The highest in class up to the end of the war. Most tanks had a 60-70mm gun while the germans had the 90 as a field piece and a 75 on the Panzers.

And the Japanese could have taken some pressure off German forces by attacking and I am thoroughly mad with how the Japanese were stupid enough to bring America into the war. In the long run without America involved I have no doubts that Germany would have eventually won. So thank goodness the yanks were there to break it up again. (joke)

I would go so far as to say that the King Tiger was a better armed and armoured tanks than the T-34 but becuase it was slow and combersome it could be out flanked easily if without infantry to support it.

That would be because the King Tiger was designed after the T-34 [beginning production in Jan 1944].

...and I am thoroughly mad with how the Japanese were stupid enough to bring America into the war.

If the plan had been carried through correctly Pearl would have done a hell of a lot more damage to the US ability to wage war in the Pacific than it did. Not hitting the drydocks was staggeringly dumb.

While true that the T-34 was a good tank, and mass produced, German tankers were far better trained and expieranced. I would go so far as to say that the King Tiger was a better armed and armoured tanks than the T-34 but becuase it was slow and combersome it could be out flanked easily if without infantry to support it.

Yea.. sorry, but that's a given anyway.
Here's the reason why.
PzKpfw VI Tiger II Heavy Tank (King Tiger)
Armor: 150mm
Main Gun: 88mm
Mass: 68,000 kg
Power: 700bhp
Reached the Eastern Front: May 1944
Numbers Built: 489

T-34/85 Medium Tank (The bigger gun version)
Armor: 90mm
Main Gun: 85mm
Mass: 32,000 kg
Power: 500bhp
Reached the Eastern Front: January 1944
Numbers Built: 11,000

As you can see, at half the weight, half the armor, virtually same gun, higher power-to-weight ratio, and a shitload more T-34's built. It's a safe bet the T-34 had the mobility advantage while retaining a close firepower difference.
And incase nobody managed to read my post above, T-34/76's were capable of destroying German Tiger's easily, they did it in the Battle for Kursk by closing into point blank range (Which tanks DON'T do).

And while the Russians can be said to have some good artillery don't forget the Germans had the 90mm tank killer. The highest in class up to the end of the war. Most tanks had a 60-70mm gun while the germans had the 90 as a field piece and a 75 on the Panzers.

No, they had the 88mm anti-aircraft gun converted to an anti-tank gun by 1941. The most widely used gun size when world war two broke out was 75mm/76mm, on medium and heavy tanks.
Vehicles with such guns that were used at the beginning of the war were:
PzKpfw IV Medium Tank
FCM 2C Heavy Tank
KV-1 Heavy Tank
Char B1 Heavy Tank

As you can see, the 75mm was in use at the beginning. And by 1941, the M3 and M4 had come into production with 75mm's and so had the T-34 with 76mm's.

And the Japanese could have taken some pressure off German forces by attacking and I am thoroughly mad with how the Japanese were stupid enough to bring America into the war. In the long run without America involved I have no doubts that Germany would have eventually won. So thank goodness the yanks were there to break it up again. (joke)

Yes, the Japanese didn't really think out the long term part of it. But Japan attacked the US because they desperatly needed resources like metal and oil, because the US had cut them off before the war. Otherwise, Japan would have never entered the war, or entered it on the allies side.
So, you can easily blame the US for Japan's entry into the war.

Gee, I thought it was because Russia (and the Ukraine) is a big tucking place with cold tucking winters that makes it really hard to stick around and fight the people who live there, who are used to it all.

That, and you run out of guys, ammunition, fuel, and tanks.

I always thought it was a matter of logistics, not little details about whose tank was better.

Vietnam: U.S. Soldiers had the M16A1 which was highly unreliable and many people bitched about em. I used the M16A2 when I was in the army, and they were just fine. Now my wife's unit has been issued M4 Carbines which are smaller and more accurate than the M16A2.

WWII: I think everyone pretty much came up with all the correct information. Hitler stalled and didn't listen to his commanders and was unprepared for the harsh Russian winters. Russia was willing to trade land for time, thereby able to stretch the Germans thin, and under supplied. The Russians also had very little choice in the matter of fighting the Germans. They could fight the Germans and possibly die, or face their own Commisars who would shoot them. Hitler got greedy. Had he stuck to his non aggression pact that he signed with Russia before invading Poland and Czechoslovakia (which Russia assisted in), he would have only been fighting a war on one from, rather than two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_September_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28WWII%29

Something else that was touched upon but not further explained was that the German war machine, the industrial area, could not produce war machines fast enough. They lacked the raw materials to manufacture what was needed. It was this desperation that prompted Hitler to go after the Caspian Sea Oil fields. (This need for materials is why he went after the small border territories between France and Germany. Well, the resources there, plus the fact that many times in history, the area was "German" territory.)

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

Here is a link of a WWII Timeline:
http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/southern-europe/southern-europe-index-1940.htm

Something else that was touched upon but not further explained was that the German war machine, the industrial area, could not produce war machines fast enough. They lacked the raw materials to manufacture what was needed. It was this desperation that prompted Hitler to go after the Caspian Sea Oil fields. (This need for materials is why he went after the small border territories between France and Germany. Well, the resources there, plus the fact that many times in history, the area was "German" territory.)

Again, it explains a great deal as far as the loss of the war, but not so much the failure of the blitzkrieg.

I was talking with my old 7th grade geography teacher a few days ago, he's a history buff. Apparently Hitler forced companies to manufacture luxury items up until early 1944. Everything from toy cars to kazoos.

BTW, the T-34 had less armor than the King Tiger, but it was at a slant /
/
like that as opposed to |
|

which means to punch a hole you have to get through more, and since SABOT shells weren't invented yet, the slant was an effective means to kill the firepower of the explosive shells they used.


and yes the ammo had some kind of crappy propellent and the interior of the barrel wasn't chrome and the rate of fire was a bit high, making it more finicky, but as I said, those who maintained it had no problems.


If you need a parallel example to Hitler's failure, look to Napoleon. Hitler did pretty much everything Napoleon did, just not as well. With the exception of the screw ups :P

Comi: Early on it was the M-16, the A-1 just had a chromed barrel, a slightly lower rate of fire, and a knob on the bolt to clear jams easier.

If you need a parallel example to Hitler's failure, look to Napoleon. Hitler did pretty much everything Napoleon did, just not as well. With the exception of the screw ups :P

Yep.

Comi: Early on it was the M-16, the A-1 just had a chromed barrel, a slightly lower rate of fire, and a knob on the bolt to clear jams easier.

The first model used in Vietnam was the AR-15 1962.
Next was the XM16E1 in 1964.
This became the M-16.
It was upgraded to the M-16A1 in 1967.
The M-16A2 was issued in 1982, and the M-16A3 an M-16A4 were issued last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16

If you need a parallel example to Hitler's failure, look to Napoleon. Hitler did pretty much everything Napoleon did, just not as well. With the exception of the screw ups :P


I've never really liked that comparison, they really were not exactly alike. For one, Hitler went for three major areas, instead of concentrating on Moscow, and it was the Russian Army this time that dealt the majority of the loss to the invaders (Generals Winter and Spring fought on the German side many a time), instead of the winter.

"Why did the Blitzkrieg Fail in Russia?"

Long supply lines, the Russian Winter, and the appearance of a new model of Russian tank.

"Why did the Blitzkrieg Fail in Russia?"

If you're going to answer this question, you have to set yourself some parameters first. "Blitzkrieg" (lightning war in German) is meant to be a quick campaign. You mention Stalingrad...but the battle of Stalingrad didn't occur until almost a year later...and that lasted for six months. If you think it failed then what were your criteria for success? From the launch of Barbarossa in July to the closest German approach to Moscow which was 5+ months later, the German army covered an enormous amount of territory and killed or captured over a million Red Army soldiers. I'd say the blitzkrieg portion of the campaign was a success.

I think your true question is "why couldn't Germany defeat the Soviet Union". For that you need to know 3 basic things:

1./ The combination of the massive population of the Soviet Union when combined with an authoritarian government meant that Stalin could push as many men into the Wermacht's path, sacrificing millions in order to buy time for his war industries to come on line fully and provide the Red Army with the tools they needed to defeat the Nazis. Stalin could literally sacrifice a million men and not fear a general uprising over the death toll...if the Soviet citizenry ever really knew what it was in the first place.

2./ Germany did not move their economy and heavy industry to a war footing until 1943. Hard to believe but Albert Speer, Reichsminister for Armaments, didn't get to fully convert the German economy to a full war footing until almost 2 years had passed after the invasion of Russia. This meant that while the German army was occupying a territory from Russia, the Caucasus, Scandinavia, the Balkans, Italy, Northern Africa, and pretty much all of Europe, the German economy had not been fully geared up to providing for them. This resulted, at crucial turning point moments in the war, in the once far superior German equipment being found to be equal to or inferior to the equipment of the enemy. That is, the German army didn't get newer, better, improved equipment fast enough to maintain their technological advantage over their opponents.

3./ The geography of Russia is such that the further east you push, the wider the country gets. This means that as you go east, the front line gets longer and longer...which requires more manpower to maintain the front line. I'm talking here about the north-south running of the front line. Attacking from Poland in the north down through Romania in the south, the German front line in July 1941, was much shorter then than it was by the time of Stalingrad. This meant that the numerically inferior German army was hard pressed to provide the same pressure along the front that they were able to exert earlier in the campaign.

Those are the three main reasons. There are lots of smaller, more detail-oriented reasons (Hitler's underestimation of Stalin to resist and his gambling on a popular peasant uprising against the Bolsheviks being the largest of those) but these are the big three: Soviet flexibility in trading lives and ground for time, the lack of a supportive German economy and the increasing geographic demands that a Russian invasion dictates.

That, and Captain America punched Hitler in his pie-hole. :D

Good luck with your paper.

Stupid question. There was no blitzkrieg on the eastern front.

Look up Basil H. Liddell-Hart's books "Strategy" and "History of the Second World War". The first book, "Strategy", has an excellent chapter on WW2. The second book is devoted entirely to WW2, all 800+ pages, and is probably the most definitive analysis ever written. Get these from a library, read the one chapter in "Strategy" and skim any parts in "History" that you need. What was a real eye-opener for me is the way that WW2 as a conflict started a long time before a shot was fired, and how much of early German conquests were secured through subversion from within, basically through political methods, along with highly successful diplomatic maneuvering... the military invasions of many of those areas were almost an afterthought. The reason the Germans lost against Russia is basically because they had to fight at all... they were overextended even dealing only with France and Poland, the first fundamentally hostile territories they occupied. Also, blitzkrieg as a strategy relies on breaking through with a highly mobile force into the vulnerable rear areas of the enemy... the Germans never truly managed that simply because Russia is so large... the rear areas were too far away to reach against any siginifcant opposition.

Some other notable military historians in addition to Liddell-Hart would be Martin van Creveld, John Keegan, Stephen Ambrose and Max Boot. Stephen Amrose's "An Army at Dawn" and "Citizen Soldiers" are great sources for the western front. Albert Seaton's "Russo German War" and Alexander Werth's "Russia at War" are among the better sources for the eastern front, but I think the analysis is just not of the same quality as that of the western front.

The tenacity of the Russian
Soldiers
Winter
People,
Forced the Germans to a standstill. The Russians simply would not surrender.
I suggest you read Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor. It would explain alot of your troubles.

Quite a few points to why Blitzkrieg failed in Russia.

I'l try describe the first one as best as I can however I'd need a diagram for ease.

Hitler's Blitzkrieg tactic involved a pincer style movement, smashing threw the lines of the enemy and enveloping them within. Russia due to the size of the country could afford to retreat when this happened. Thus moving back to the next line of defence, slashing and burning all resources as they went, this left Germany desperately short of supplies, supplies that the German railroads couldn't carry. When the Wehrmacht smashed into the next Russian lines, the Russians would fall back again. By the end of it the Russian lines had got so thick, the Wehrmacht couldn't breakthrough them, thus making Blitzkrieg near enough impossible. Also your point about Russian Nationalism is totally true. Maybe due to propaganda however in my experience of Russian Military history. The Russians have always defended their homeland with all the grit and determenation us British used in the Battle Of Britain. The Soviets really would not give up their homeland to the 'Fascist invaders'. This Russian quality was also embued further by the old political ideologies playing a factor in the War. Communism vs Nazism, its common acceptance that if you are fighting against an enemy that is ideologically opposite to you, then you're going to fight a lot harder.

Hitler's arrogance and his belief that he could single handedly control the German armed forces also played a huge part in not only the defeat in Russia, but ultimately the whole war. When FieldMarshall Paulus asked for permission to retreat from Stalingrad, Hitler ordered him to stay and all his men must fight till not one of them was left standing. Also if Hitler's rescue operation with the Panzers (can't remember which division) had been enacted earlier maybe Paulus and his 6th Army would of been saved, the 6th army being one of Germany's best units.

I'd write more but I bet you've heard enough. Good luck with your paper. I've got to go and right one on the Battle Of Austerlitz.

Look up Basil H. Liddell-Hart's books "Strategy" and "History of the Second World War". The first book, "Strategy", has an excellent chapter on WW2. The second book is devoted entirely to WW2, all 800+ pages, and is probably the most definitive analysis ever written. Get these from a library, read the one chapter in "Strategy" and skim any parts in "History" that you need. What was a real eye-opener for me is the way that WW2 as a conflict started a long time before a shot was fired, and how much of early German conquests were secured through subversion from within, basically through political methods, along with highly successful diplomatic maneuvering... the military invasions of many of those areas were almost an afterthought. The reason the Germans lost against Russia is basically because they had to fight at all... they were overextended even dealing only with France and Poland, the first fundamentally hostile territories they occupied. Also, blitzkrieg as a strategy relies on breaking through with a highly mobile force into the vulnerable rear areas of the enemy... the Germans never truly managed that simply because Russia is so large... the rear areas were too far away to reach against any siginifcant opposition.

Some other notable military historians in addition to Liddell-Hart would be Martin van Creveld, John Keegan, Stephen Ambrose and Max Boot. Stephen Amrose's "An Army at Dawn" and "Citizen Soldiers" are great sources for the western front. Albert Seaton's "Russo German War" and Alexander Werth's "Russia at War" are among the better sources for the eastern front, but I think the analysis is just not of the same quality as that of the western front.


Perhapse more important than his histories of the war, Hart (and others) were instrumental in actually developing the blitzkrieg. (I don't have my copy of Achtung - Panzer! onhand, but I seem to recall that Guderian credited Hart with the idea in the book.)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm

Perhapse more important than his histories of the war, Hart (and others) were instrumental in actually developing the blitzkrieg. (I don't have my copy of Achtung - Panzer! onhand, but I seem to recall that Guderian credited Hart with the idea in the book.)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm

The British Gen Fuller is usually credited with developing the blitzkrieg in the 20's - together with Liddell-Hart and Gen Martell.

Some interesting quotes here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm

Liddell-Hart would be one of the best people to write a history, considering ;)

The British Gen Fuller is usually credited with developing the blitzkrieg in the 20's - together with Liddell-Hart and Gen Martell.

Some interesting quotes here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm

Liddell-Hart would be one of the best people to write a history, considering ;)


Although the concept was thought up in it's most basic form by Churchill durring the First World war. The Medium Mk.A Whippet tank was specificly designed for the requierments Churchill had for a new form of tank warfare requiering speedy armor and infantry advances to make a hard punch through enemy lines and attack their rear.
And thus, the Medium Mk.A is often credited as the first "Blitzkreig" tank, and durring and after the First World War, German engineers studied captured Whippets and their proposed tactics, thus formulating what became the Blitzkreig doctorine of WW2.

The British Gen Fuller is usually credited with developing the blitzkrieg in the 20's - together with Liddell-Hart and Gen Martell.

Some interesting quotes here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm

Liddell-Hart would be one of the best people to write a history, considering ;)

Nice one, thanks. :)

And, yes, Liddell-Hart would be one of the best to write that history.

There are several reason why the Blitzkrieg failed:

1. Russia was big, very big. The german soldiers got demoralized because no mather how far they advanced the country still looked the same. The vast land worked as a disadvantage.

2. Hitler wanted to Stalingrad and the oil-fields. With the recources the german army had in 1942, they could have never taken both of them. Hitler should have made a choice: Stalingrad ( because of ideological reason -> 'Stalin'-grad ) and the oil fields ( economical reason ).

3. Stalin. After the disastrous start and the crushing defeats he began to listen to his generals. He did not impose his will to much and had fate in the abilities of his commanders. The commanders felt that stalin was behind them and could fight more assured. They had permission to fall back on occasions.

4. The blitzkrieg was at its best when the defender would stand on his ground and would not fall back. In this manner they had achieved lots of victories and captured huge number of prisoners. In 1942 the soviets were allowed to fall back -> the germans could still capture a number of prisoners but on the huge scale as they did in 1941.

Stupid question. There was no blitzkrieg on the eastern front. Partially true. Germany's attack to France was blitzkrieg. Attack to Soviet Union was called Operation Barbarossa, and it wasn't real blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg is "fast" war.

Daistallia 2104
I asked around about the French combat rations. From what I've gathered they have REAL crackers, pate, and red wine (I find the wine doubtful as it'd probably be less than optimum after sitting on the bottom of an ALICE or MOLLE pack for a week in warm weather, but whatever.). There stuff is quite a bit closer to fresh than ours, but I've read that it's heavier.

I've heard about the Marines using the M16A3, but I thought that everyone was switching to the M-4 before going for the XM-8.


The Sword and Sheild:
Wasn't it Borodino where the Russian Army ripped up Napoleon (lazy ragbag, always falls on his face when he's not in sh*t state) because he didn't bother to flank, and just had his men charge the ramparts?

Anywho, I see your point, but both armies required mobility to succeed, both armies lived off the land, both armies needed conflict to boost morale. And can't you argue that the Russian army in not opening up their supply lanes to Napoleon screwed him over?

Borodino certainly bloodied his army, it lacked any semblance of manuever that would be expected of Napoleon (if he had only listened to Davout) and was basically the french bashing thmselves against the Russians (who were saved from destruction by the absence of the Guard) and vice versa. But it did not stop the Grand Armee (or what was left of it). Certainly the Russian Army played a role in Napoleon's defeat, but not quite the role it played against Hitler, where it went head on against him pushing him back across the Elbe. Against Napoleon it basically nipped at his heels (causing damage to be sure), but never fought a decisive engagement that threw Napoleon back, though an argument could be made for Malo-Jaroslavetz.

I've heard about the Marines using the M16A3, but I thought that everyone was switching to the M-4 before going for the XM-8.
It's still not completely certain at this point but the marines probably won't be going to the XM-8. They'll drop the poodleshooter round and go back to an M-14 style weapon.

Daistallia 2104
I asked around about the French combat rations. From what I've gathered they have REAL crackers, pate, and red wine (I find the wine doubtful as it'd probably be less than optimum after sitting on the bottom of an ALICE or MOLLE pack for a week in warm weather, but whatever.). There stuff is quite a bit closer to fresh than ours, but I've read that it's heavier.

Found a good site:

http://www.mreinfo.com/france.html
"Ration de Combat Individuelle Rechauffable"

It appears they no longer have wine, but still look darn tasty.

I've heard about the Marines using the M16A3, but I thought that everyone was switching to the M-4 before going for the XM-8.

That's what I'd heard as well, but maybe not completely:

Modern Firearms & Ammunition (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm) gives the adoption of the M16A3 as 1994.

Marines inspect M16A4s bound for Iraq (http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/CEF61968E0762F7B85256E62007D9894?opendocument)

Armed Bookworms: First off, please capitalize Marine, I don't care if they're Royal Marines or American Marines. Our Marines go through a great deal of training to earn the globe and anchor. If you can do pushups at something close to 60 a minute for 5 minutes straight and then go through a standard day of PT I won't argue with you, otherwise show the respect that the Marines deserve.

Why do you figure the Marines will be going for a weapon that has an effective range of just shy of a thousand yards? As I recall combat has been taking place in no greater than 250 yards... for the past 60 years. I understand the need for snipers and heavy machine guns, however I doubt the standard Marine wants to carry .308 which weighs about 133% more than .223 when they can carry .223, and engage enemy personell at more than sufficient length?

I've never been in a combat zone, however I've tried reflex shooting in close quarters with a 30.06, a .223 rifle, and a 9mm pistol, believe me, the best thing is the one that you can whip around the quickest. I've also target shot with those three, the 30.06 is best in that scenario, but really, not by all that much, as it's hard to shoot iron sights when the sight post covers your the whole shillouette.

However, in the interests of learning, I'm curious as to where you recieved your information. I don't mean to flame and be a dirtbag, however I am curious. E-mail me at secret_seas@hotmail.com and put 'Cadet' (without parentheses) in the subject.
Thank you.

Daistalia: HAH! I was right about the Pate :P
Geez though, Shepherd pie, and sauted rabit... man oh man I'd love to get one of those.

PS: ever try K-rats? little uber energy bars. They've got the consistency of pressed sawdust...

russia was simply to big, the tactic couldn't deal with the russia ability to withdraw further east and or simple give up territory for time, the blitzkrieg needs to work fast and with at least tactical surprise to be effective.

distance, in a word.

but germany can never win on two fronts.

its a fact.

see every war since 1500

distance, in a word.

but germany can never win on two fronts.

its a fact.

see every war since 1500
Whats that supposed to mean? Germany as a nation didn't exist untill 1871. And Prussia actually did win in a more then one front war. The 7 year war. Which was fought on three fronts at one time. Untill they managed to kick the French out for the rest of the war in Europe.

Why did the Germans lose in Russia?

Because they were Germans. 'Nuff said.

Did somebody already say "because Russia's really big"?

There's a huge difference between blitzing a Belgium and blitzing a Russia. To use the football analogy, you gotta cover a thousand miles before you can sac their QB.

Did somebody already say "because Russia's really big"?

There's a huge difference between blitzing a Belgium and blitzing a Russia. To use the football analogy, you gotta cover a thousand miles before you can sac their QB.
Also the Soviet Unions infrastructure, roads, rail roads, channels etc...was not as developed as the ones in France or Belgium. Russia's lousy roads did more to slow the Blitz down then the Red Army. ;)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

The Germans lost because it was in the script!

oooh oooh ooh! They forgot that Napalm Sticks to kids! HOOAH!


btw, I'm sort of thinking that this thread is dead by now, because there's been ALL kinds of tangents. Anywho, we get the idea of crappy roads, a big place where you trade space for time. and superior tanks and loads of tube artillery (I believe that was already said, not too sure.). Whereas the Germans had to get there and get the job done, with horse drawn arty, and mostly by foot in conjunction with extreme weather conditions, and against loads more enemies. Plus by the time they got into combat they were fighting untraines Russian farmers, who unlike the Wermacht were probably able to pick up there T-34's to see what was wrong with them.

Again to restate, I'm thinking this thread is dead. I'm sure the guy who started the thread is all squared away.

Stupid question. There was no blitzkrieg on the eastern front. no blitzkreig? blitzkreig is the tactic of combined arms you assault with infantry across a large front so the enemy doenst know where the main force of your armor hits. then you throw in some artillery and aris support thats blitzkreig and we all use it today. the only chance for the germans was to take most of the country before the winter hit and before the russians got mobilized. hitler stalled in the balkans when he should have focused on russia sooner if he was going to win. if it was me id have left russia alone and taken out the uk they where a much easier target. the germans where suprized by how good the russian t34 tanks where and didnt hade true tank supremacy till the tigers and panthers started rolling.