Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 4:22:35 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

This is an offshoot of a discussion in the War in the East forum. Basically the question is, could the Germans have defeated the Soviet Union in WW2? I'm inclined to believe the answer is "no". Well...with a possible exception. If the Germans had taken Moscow in '41 with Stalin in it maybe the Soviet Union would have collapsed and sued for peace. Otherwise it seems to me that Germany lacked the resources in manpower and material to fight a war with the USSR all the way through.

I'm no expert on the subject so what do others think?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 5:02:55 PM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

I know it�s simplistic but I honestly think Hitler�s total distrust and lack of confidencein in his staff would have just found another opportunity to lose the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 2

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 5:43:04 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Of course anything is possible when dabbling in hypotheticals but I agree with Sarge in that Hitler being Hitler went a long way toward assuring that the Germans were doomed to lose. Of course Hitler could have always have had a change of heart and decided to listen to Guderian or Manstein. Also Stalin could have always gotten a bullet in the head in that fateful meeting and the Soviet leadership could have experienced a complete collapse and panic.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 3

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 5:58:10 PM

sullafelix

Posts: 1520
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline

I believe quite easily except for his mad racial policies. The Germans were greeted as deliverers from soviet oppression in the beginning. Had they decided to outline a plan of of small states, Ukraine etc.. where they would have been dependents of Germany much like what they proposed in WWI. The Germans would have had tons of willing partners to crush soviet Russia. There would have been no need to worry about partisans and they would have had plenty of recruits. He could even had lied ( what a stretch ) and first conquered and then followed through with the racial policies.

Of course to be honest without the sicko racial policies many scientists would not have left Germany and we might all be singing edelweiss.

But even with the same policies intact if Germany had been put on a war footing in 39 or 40 instead of 43 and Speer had that much more time to build the economy before bombing became an issue they could have won. Instead of 5000 panthers and 1400 tigers how about 25000 and 10000. With one German tank worth 5 allied even the vasts amounts we built might not have been enough. Also with the eastern campaign remember that the panzer divisions tank strength was cut in half right before the invasion. What if because of the ability to build more tanks they weren't.

I could go on and on about the various strategical and operational errors that were made.

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 4

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 6:33:52 PM

Monkeys Brain

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

This is an offshoot of a discussion in the War in the East forum. Basically the question is, could the Germans have defeated the Soviet Union in WW2? I'm inclined to believe the answer is "no". Well...with a possible exception. If the Germans had taken Moscow in '41 with Stalin in it maybe the Soviet Union would have collapsed and sued for peace. Otherwise it seems to me that Germany lacked the resources in manpower and material to fight a war with the USSR all the way through.

I'm no expert on the subject so what do others think?

OK, history teacher called Monkyes Brain needs to step in...

First Germany would have to take Murmanks (lol, yes that), but not nececarily.
Most important would have be to take Leningrad in 1941. Or At least to tighten the grip on Leningrad. They only had one division helpin Finns on Svir river (understrength I think because that division missed one regiment I think). As Von Arnim raced to capture Tikhvin with ONE panzer corps and as Finns DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help them out, Soviets quicky attacked his flanks and liberated Tikhvin in November 1941.
So inedaquate forces....
Also Hitler and others did judge wrongly ability of Soviets to make up those losses of 1941. See figure of tanks and planes production for 1942. for example.
Weapon production was also mentioned. Of course in 1941. Germans should have stripped other fronts most rigidly (France, Norrway, etc...) and leave only enough for defense. UK was not prepared to attack in 1941. or 1942. (Dieppe...)

But, if Leninigrad was taken in 1941. or prepared to be taken by spring 1942. And IF Moscow has been taken in 1941. or latest spring/summer 1942. then they would have some chance.

Moscow was very important because mostly it was biggest railroad hube with 200000 railroad cars as well there. If you take Moscow then you inhibit most important North South transfer of Russian reserves - if Moscow is taken then northern Russia is gone as well.

You, of course need one major victory in the south of course then Russian are gone to Gorky and then to Urals. I doubt that rest of USSR would make too much problems they could be saved only some time because of great distances.

Voila.

< Message edited by Monkeys Brain -- 6/30/2009 6:37:09 PM >

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 5

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 8:02:55 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

I would say that; yes, Russia could have been beaten-with three little changes to the real situation.

1. Technology- The Mk3 could have been equipped with the high velocity 50 gun from the very beginning of the production. For reasons of standardization, (equipping infantry and AFV's with the 37mm) it was decided to design the turret so it could be easily upgraded to the 50mm from the 37 latter on. The order for that change came just after the French campaign-ordered by Hitler himself. For some reason, there was a misunderstanding, and the tanks were rearmed with the low velocity 50mm gun. This huge mistake was not corrected until 1942, but which time the small tank was approaching the end of its usefulness. Of course, to develop a AT type gun for the Mk4 pre Barbarossa would have been a good idea too, but not essential.

2. Production- Germany was the only major country that could have drastically increased its production during the early war that did not. The 72 hour work week was not instituted in Germany until 1943. At a stroke of a pen, Germany could have experience a 20% increase in production-starting in '39.

3. Operational- The focus of the invasion of Russia should have been the capture of Moscow-and then the final elimination of the Red Army. This plan (which was actually put forward, but not used) would have had to have been agreed upon well before the actual invasion began. The actual plan that was utilized for Barbarossa did not have this focus and leaves some serious doubt that Moscow could have been taken.

With these three little points adhered to, Germany could have "won" in the east. This still would not have guaranteed winning the war-that would call for an additional 3 points-at least.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 6

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 8:10:28 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

As far as I'm concerned it depends on a lot of things, and still, with all we may talk about it, we will be no closer to knowing the truth.

1. The main question, just which germany are we talking about? Something of the real world germany, or a fictitious one where germany is really only against the USSR (no France to occupy, and no NAfrica, and no interference from either the USA or GB). It's my opinion that germany was the greatest single military might in the world, such that it "could" beat any one nation by itself, but the problem is the real world germany never had it so easy.

2. Real world germany - A lot of things could had been done differently to turn the tide, and several of them approach the artificial germany I spoke of, such as depleting France (or Norway) of more occupational troops, or not having a NAfrican campaign. Whether letting Italy wither on the vine in NAfrica, could bring more problems than was historical for germany I cannot say. It would seem Italy would be invaded sooner, but then trying to get rid of the USSR sooner would had been easier and less supply would had been lost for DAK if they were supplied in the USSR instead.

3. Would the german drive for Kiev had ended up better actually trying to take Leningrad, or more importantly Moscow?

4. Of course, as mentioned earlier, what does an earlier gearing up for Total War accomplish?

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 7

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 8:57:11 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

As far as I'm concerned it depends on a lot of things, and still, with all we may talk about it, we will be no closer to knowing the truth.

The truth? Perhaps not, but we can certainly make reasonable assumptions. In multiple models of the campaign, Germany has been able to triumph with the right plan and a player that can stick to it. Of course, we all have the benefit of inside knowledge today that the Germans did not have. I recall a sentence from Hitler (too bad I don't recall the time period) which he stated that; "I went into Russia like a madman breaking down a door, and not knowing what was on the other side". What could Germany have accomplished if they even had a fraction of our current knowledge of Russian capabilities? Perhaps if we can find a couple of very intense gamers who hate military history and know nothing of the war and give them the best game for an Operation Barbarossa (and some 1940's operational theory)-then we will know the "truth".

Russia would be tough to defeat under any circumstances. The extent of Russian power is not fully realized by many. Russian armaments production during the 1930's exceeded the entire rest of the world combined (excluding naval forces). The Red Air Force was actually so large that even with the astounding losses it suffered, there was never a shortage of pilots. Russia was a monster of a power.

quote:

1. The main question, just which germany are we talking about? Something of the real world germany, or a fictitious one where germany is really only against the USSR (no France to occupy, and no NAfrica, and no interference from either the USA or GB). It's my opinion that germany was the greatest single military might in the world, such that it "could" beat any one nation by itself, but the problem is the real world germany never had it so easy.

Good point. From the Germans POV at the time, they were taking great risks in the west to be able to conduct Barbarossa-there really was not much more they could have thrown into it that was actually available.

quote:

3. Would the german drive for Kiev had ended up better actually trying to take Leningrad, or more importantly Moscow?

I think so, but again, with the initial plan that was used, this is iffy. It is clear though that the commanders that wanted to capture the heart of Russian power before Russia was able to reorganize were quite correct in their thinking. If its the only chance to win, you've got to go for it. The problem was that there was no consensus as to what it would actually take to win.

quote:

4. Of course, as mentioned earlier, what does an earlier gearing up for Total War accomplish?

Well, for Germany by the end of 1941, well over 5000 aircraft of all (Luftwaffe had less than 3000 a/c in Dec '41) types for starters, hundreds of thousands of tons of critical munitions types, about 20,000 trucks and thousands of armored fighting vehicles. It may have had a positive impact on research also. Of all the things that could have had a big impact on the war, this is number one IMO. The British geared up from day one-and they won.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 8

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 9:06:23 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

The bane of all historic wargaming; hindsight.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 9

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 11:40:16 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

I would say that; yes, Russia could have been beaten-with three little changes to the real situation.

1. Technology- The Mk3 could have been equipped with the high velocity 50 gun from the very beginning of the production. For reasons of standardization, (equipping infantry and AFV's with the 37mm) it was decided to design the turret so it could be easily upgraded to the 50mm from the 37 latter on. The order for that change came just after the French campaign-ordered by Hitler himself. For some reason, there was a misunderstanding, and the tanks were rearmed with the low velocity 50mm gun. This huge mistake was not corrected until 1942, but which time the small tank was approaching the end of its usefulness. Of course, to develop a AT type gun for the Mk4 pre Barbarossa would have been a good idea too, but not essential.

I would suggest this didn't really matter, Maestro, in the grand scheme. Given the success the Germans had during the initial campaign, how much better could things have gotten? the German Panzerwaffe was technically outclassed in France but got the job done. No doubt this error cost lives, but given the numbers of Soviet Tanks destroyed or captured, it's hard to believe this would have made much of a difference.

quote:

2. Production- Germany was the only major country that could have drastically increased its production during the early war that did not. The 72 hour work week was not instituted in Germany until 1943. At a stroke of a pen, Germany could have experience a 20% increase in production-starting in '39.

I don't think it was that simple. Part of Germany's production issues stemmed from attitudes within the wehrmacht to weaponry and outdated production processes at home. These took time to rectify. Changing to a three shift system and rationalising design choices certainly improved production, but the German economy simply wasn't equipped to deliver what the Wehrmacht needed however long they worked.

For example, given Germany's campaign-long lack of POL, exactly what use would another ten thousand tanks have been? Germany would never have been able to fuel them, and would have struggled to provision them. Germany certainly wouldn't have been able to provide the trucks for move the accompanying infantry had another 10 or even 20 Panzer Divisions been raised.

quote:

3. Operational- The focus of the invasion of Russia should have been the capture of Moscow-and then the final elimination of the Red Army. This plan (which was actually put forward, but not used) would have had to have been agreed upon well before the actual invasion began. The actual plan that was utilized for Barbarossa did not have this focus and leaves some serious doubt that Moscow could have been taken.

The real point was that Moscow was irrelevant given the general German doctrinal intent to destroy the opposing field force. For example, the usual bug bear in this sort of thread was the diversion to Kiev. However, this bagged 665000 prisoners and gave the AXIS numerical superiority (albeit briefly) for the only time in the entire war. Moscow was only essentially useful because in defending it, the Russians would mass and give the Germans a chance to achieve larger than normal victories, as they did at Vyazma and Bryansk. However, given most organs of government and production was out before Typhoon got going, I don't see it would have made that much difference.

The essential German issue was that there were not enough AXIs troops, there was not enough motorised equipment and supporting logistics, they were numerically outnumbered and every mile they advanced drew their spearheads further apart in a country that got wider the further east you went.

Regards,
IronDuke

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 6/30/2009 11:50:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 10

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 6/30/2009 11:46:40 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Well, for Germany by the end of 1941, well over 5000 aircraft of all (Luftwaffe had less than 3000 a/c in Dec '41) types for starters, hundreds of thousands of tons of critical munitions types, about 20,000 trucks and thousands of armored fighting vehicles. It may have had a positive impact on research also. Of all the things that could have had a big impact on the war, this is number one IMO. The British geared up from day one-and they won.

Again here, (I'm not picking on you, sorry if it appears that way). All extra aircraft and tanks do is stretch the available POL further. Instead of getting to the outskirts of Moscow, the extra tanks and aircraft only really ensure that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe are stopped after Kiev.

Also, with regards munitions. Given the German logistical situation, extra munitions didn't help because the Germans couldn't lift them to the front anyway.

The same applies to the trucks. Germany lacked the raw materials to make rubber. They simply would not have been able to produce enough tyres to equip 20000 or 50000 new trucks even if they had had the fuel to fill them up. 20000 was also not enough. The Wehrmacht marched into Russia with thousands of French Civilian vehicles that were simply not up to the job. Any serious programme should have concentrated on upgrading the truck fleet, not necessarily augmenting it.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 11

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 1:06:07 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Again here, (I'm not picking on you, sorry if it appears that way).

No, not at all. Its a big subject and there is lots of room for differing views-and reasons for those (most of the time).

quote:

All extra aircraft and tanks do is stretch the available POL further. Instead of getting to the outskirts of Moscow, the extra tanks and aircraft only really ensure that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe are stopped after Kiev.

True-to a certain extent. However, one needs to analyze the cost of an entire divisions that requires supply and support while it is missing (or critically short of) its primary weapon system which makes it mission capable. An armored divsion which still had 14,000 men, 1,500 trucks, but 25 tanks is a huge and wasteful drain on the supply system. With 100 more tanks and 500 more men, the added costs to keep that division supplied would be minimal-especially when you consider its added capabilities-which would be several times more than the depleted division. The same rational holds true for air units. To maintain a base that is meant to sup[port a hundred a/c, but there are only 20 to keep going is not the most productive way to do things.

quote:

Also, with regards munitions. Given the German logistical situation, extra munitions didn't help because the Germans couldn't lift them to the front anyway.

This is largely true from the late summer of '41 well into '42. By the spring of '42 the rail system had been repaired well enough so that operational shortages should not have occurred (until jumping forward again another few hundred miles). (side note, this raises the grand strategy for the '42 campaign-many though that by standing on the defensive-(except for Leningrad and Sevastopol)- for a year would pay off better than attempting another big push when things were just starting to go right-supply wise-no small consideration).

quote:

The same applies to the trucks. Germany lacked the raw materials to make rubber. They simply would not have been able to produce enough tyres to equip 20000 or 50000 new trucks even if they had had the fuel to fill them up. 20000 was also not enough. The Wehrmacht marched into Russia with thousands of French Civilian vehicles that were simply not up to the job. Any serious programme should have concentrated on upgrading the truck fleet, not necessarily augmenting it.
Regards,
IronDuke

There were very good stocks of strategic materials at the start of the war-Goering was actually a very sharp chap in that regards. It is true that rubber was a looming problem, but one that was eventually overcome with synthetic rubber. The supplies could have handled the added production for a few years-of course, they did not know how successful the synthetic plants were going to be-so it becomes a question of more now, or more later. In any event, some areas of the armaments industry could have been exempted from the 72 hour work week. There were area, such as a/c production that were held back by some very poor planning. Germany was rich in aluminum for instance, but the a/c factories were fearful of shortages, thus resulting in hording and additional waste. I don't recall the figures with clarity right now, but something like only 50% of aluminum production was reserved for the Luftwaffe, whereas the RAF received almost 100% of GB's production. Shift work and the 72 hour work week could not have bee that difficult to implement-after all, the Brits did it immediately, Speer was able to get it rolling quite quickly after the demise of Todt. (in fairness, Todt did start the program for non Luftwaffe factories a few months before his accident).

As for the fuel situation; there was no strategic shortage which would effect primary operations. I have seen statements that there were fuel shortages in France during the 1940 campaign-these were due to poor staff work rather than any strategic shortage of fuel. It was not until late in '42 before fuel was becoming critically short for primary operations. This is not to say that Germany was not acutely short in a strategic sense, but they had more than enough in 1941 for Barbarossa-even if there were another several thousand more tanks and a/c.

Hitler had told Todt that he wanted a thousand tanks a month after the French campaign-he was told it was impossible. It clearly was not.

The Luftwaffe would have had to start looking into better ways to train much larger numbers of pilots, as they did later in the war. Fuel was certainly a big consideration in training the force. Had the cutbacks begun earlier, and accelerated the improvements in ground training, a much larger (and high standard) German Air Force would have been available by 1942.

Again, I think that a simple stroke of a pen ordering the 72 hour work week would have given enough material to make a significant difference in Barbarossa. By 1942, the differences would have been rather huge-especially in the air.

On a related point; Goering wanted the new Volkswagen factory to be put under the Luftwaffe sphere right at the beginning of the war. This was Germany's biggest factory. Had he received control of that plant, resource consumption by the Luftwaffe would have expanded drastically. Goering had no qualms about that-and he was the guy who should have knon better than anyone in Germany. Luckily for the allies, Hitler decided to give it over to Army orders-but it sat idle for a very long time.

Compared to British prewar planning, the Germans were far behind the curve. The Brits (even under Chamberlain) had made real plans for turning all automotive plants into a/c factories. The appropriate executives were all informed so that the plan could commence as soon as required. They planned to double production in the first year, and double iot again in the second year-quite ambitious-and nearly completed.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 12

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 1:12:06 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

06 Maestro: The USSR superiority in numbers is often fake. There's no way the quality of the USSR soldier equaled, on average, the german soldier, and comrade Stalin made sure of that with the 30's -and- 40's purges. The air force was a total joke, as it was almost completely eliminated within the first week. Only after the germans as a whole started having troubles on other fronts, could any sense of numbers be used positively for their air force (through the factories building new ones). Part of the luxury the USSR had, remember, was they never faced the whole of anything german, but then that's the artificial germany I spoke of. After the Siberian divisions were let loose germany had to face more or less the entire USSR force, whereas germany occupying other lands and fearing invasions there, never really got to show the USSR the total capabilities. Only if the USSR invaded germany from the start would that had been possible. Only in matters of armor (and the navy for either side played such a minor part) was the USSR the superior in the first years. Almost always superior in numbers I would presume, and at times in individual tank capabilities as well (KV1 and T34 period in particular), but a lot of that advantage was squandered away in just plain bad tactics and disorganization.

Total War can look like a possible solution for them, but part of the problem was having that fascist pig directing them. What I mean by that, is that Hitler feared his own people and assasination attempts, even before Barbarossa began. It looks like a mistake not to gear up for war earlier, but part of the problem is that he already had a number of people wanting to bump him off, so that last thing he needed was to give more people more reasons to do so.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 13

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 1:49:21 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Total War can look like a possible solution for them, but part of the problem was having that fascist pig directing them. What I mean by that, is that Hitler feared his own people and assasination attempts, even before Barbarossa began. It looks like a mistake not to gear up for war earlier, but part of the problem is that he already had a number of people wanting to bump him off, so that last thing he needed was to give more people more reasons to do so.

Political considerations were, oddly enough, the prime reason for Germany failing to gear up for total war before it was too late.
There was a desire by Hitler to keep the general population happy to avoid any moral problems-but what moral problems would occur from a lack of air protection? They knew they were in a battle to the death-their early approach to war production leaves one wondering what they were thinking.

Soviet equipment was not bad stuff. It is true that many of their tanks were nothing more that expensive pill boxes in '41, but there was a lot of them. As you say, the training was a major factor, unit and individual. Experience was lacking, but if they could survive, then the experience would come-and it did.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 14

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 3:17:15 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Total War can look like a possible solution for them, but part of the problem was having that fascist pig directing them. What I mean by that, is that Hitler feared his own people and assasination attempts, even before Barbarossa began. It looks like a mistake not to gear up for war earlier, but part of the problem is that he already had a number of people wanting to bump him off, so that last thing he needed was to give more people more reasons to do so.

Political considerations were, oddly enough, the prime reason for Germany failing to gear up for total war before it was too late.
There was a desire by Hitler to keep the general population happy to avoid any moral problems-but what moral problems would occur from a lack of air protection? They knew they were in a battle to the death-their early approach to war production leaves one wondering what they were thinking.

Soviet equipment was not bad stuff. It is true that many of their tanks were nothing more that expensive pill boxes in '41, but there was a lot of them. As you say, the training was a major factor, unit and individual. Experience was lacking, but if they could survive, then the experience would come-and it did.

That's one dilemma that plagues me as well, that military reverses might be just as harrowing to the public as having to work too hard. Come to think of it though if what you were referring to was the USAAF and RAF bombing campaigns, by the time they went to total war, there really wasn't that much reason to believe they couldn't handle the strategic bombers. The USA couldn't have started earlier than 1/42 and somewhere around 1/43, after Stalingrad, came the Total War speech. I don't think there was enough evidence before the speech to suggest they couldn't handle anything that was aerially thrown against them. The most easy solution, which did end up happening, was to put more emphasis on fighter production, but I suspect that the Total War speech came even before that. Another thing I wonder about, just how quickly after the speech did the turnabout start? Was it just a lot of hot air for several months, or did they really get serious right then? At least with the military reverse of Stalingrad, they then had the excuse that the population had to work harder in order to hope to win, or as they probably put it, to make up for what was lost there.

< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 7/1/2009 3:19:07 AM >

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 15

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 3:58:57 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Another thing I wonder about, just how quickly after the speech did the turnabout start? Was it just a lot of hot air for several months, or did they really get serious right then?

As best as I can recall (from A. Speers book) is that Todt initiated the 72 hour work week for German armaments factories in January of '43. German production did start to climb immediately from that point. The Luftwaffe plants had there own supervision. Although their output began to rise rapidly also, they did not go onto the 72 hour week until April of '43. The differences in production were amazing. If we did not start smashing factories that summer, things were going to get real ugly.

Regarding German Intel on our bomber forces; from what I understand, Goering was well informed of U.S. bomber production and production forecasts as of mid '42. Some simply did not believe it was possible, other Luftwaffe Generals wanted to stop bomber production so that everything could be concentrated on fighters. IIRC, the extreme response to the plausible threat from the U.S. was not taken in that the war in the east was suppose to be largely over so the Luftwaffe could return to the west in numbers.

On a related thought; the U.S. high command was not worried about the Germans capturing the Caucasian oil centers. Apparently the Brits were. It had bee reasoned out that even with a huge increase in fuel supplies for the Luftwaffe, they were a spent force. The reduction of quality trainers for the Luftwaffe was an ever ongoing event with one "emergency" after another. Even with higher production and an increase in fuel, the problems would become insurmountable. The time that was required to train new units and aircrew was just no longer available to the Luftwaffe before the hammer would fall. That was the US view in late '42 anyway.

The critical years for the Luftwaffe expansion was '40-'41. This is another reason why the higher production in the early years of the war were critical. They needed training a/c by the thousands. Losses of first line a/c due to training accidents were very high-something like 1 plane for 5 pilots. These were problems the RAF anticipated-and somewhat avoided. Although the RAF actually lost more a/c from accident than from combat for a long time-they kept churning out the aviators and planes until they were on top of the situation.

This conversation reminds me of a great book I have on the air war. Its not about the battles per se, but the overall organization of the various air forces, training, research control and industrial policies-complete with numbers. I will find that sometime in the next day and post its title/author. It was fascinating stuff.

< Message edited by 06 Maestro -- 7/1/2009 3:59:33 AM >

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 16

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 4:51:51 AM

Qwixt

Posts: 902
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

I know it�s simplistic but I honestly think Hitler�s total distrust and lack of confidencein in his staff would have just found another opportunity to lose the war.

I agree with you. The man was crazy.

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 17

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 5:49:11 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

I know it�s simplistic but I honestly think Hitler�s total distrust and lack of confidencein in his staff would have just found another opportunity to lose the war.

I agree with you. The man was crazy.

That is somewhat simplistic, but is also probably true. There were just too many little mistakes-mistakes that could be traced back to a somewhat flawed leader.

Regarding mistrust; the mishap on upgrading the Mark 3 to the high velocity 50mm was blamed on the Quartermaster General. Hitler gave the order for the change (about July 1940) in a large staff meeting. When the error was discovered (early '41?) the General stated he followed his instructions. Hitler said no-I said high velocity. So, an effort was made to get to the bottom of this almost treasonous action to determine just who said what. It turned out that they could not find out for sure-because it was found that no stenographer was present at the meeting. There was no record of what was said at all. I don't know what happened to the good General-his career certainly had a big hurt on it.

Two things came of this situation to make things better. All meetings were to be recorded-and-

that there would no longer be a Quartermaster General present in any of the OKW briefings. This would have been initiated right in the middle of detailed planning for Barbarossa. Knocking your top supply expert out of the top loop of information on the eve of the greatest military operation ever is not really all that bright-regardless if he made a mistake or not. I'm not sure if this ban lasted throughout the war, but if it did there is small wonder that the Army ran into some supply problems here and there.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Qwixt)

Post #: 18

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 6:28:22 AM

bigbaba

Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

This is an offshoot of a discussion in the War in the East forum. Basically the question is, could the Germans have defeated the Soviet Union in WW2? I'm inclined to believe the answer is "no". Well...with a possible exception. If the Germans had taken Moscow in '41 with Stalin in it maybe the Soviet Union would have collapsed and sued for peace. Otherwise it seems to me that Germany lacked the resources in manpower and material to fight a war with the USSR all the way through.

I'm no expert on the subject so what do others think?

a famous quote about fighting against russia is:

"you can only defeat russia from inside."

as the german troops advanced into russia, they were welcomed as liberators by the population of the baltic states, ukraine, belaruss...but hitlers "lebensraum ost" ideology saw no room for this russian people who hated stalins regime. and when the people noticed that hitler isnt better then stalin, they joined the partisan movement which was realy huge in 1943-1944.

with a human policy in russia, the germans would surely beat stalin, but not with their nazi ideology.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 19

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 2:02:19 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Another thing I wonder about, just how quickly after the speech did the turnabout start? Was it just a lot of hot air for several months, or did they really get serious right then?

As best as I can recall (from A. Speers book) is that Todt initiated the 72 hour work week for German armaments factories in January of '43. German production did start to climb immediately from that point. The Luftwaffe plants had there own supervision. Although their output began to rise rapidly also, they did not go onto the 72 hour week until April of '43. The differences in production were amazing. If we did not start smashing factories that summer, things were going to get real ugly.

Regarding German Intel on our bomber forces; from what I understand, Goering was well informed of U.S. bomber production and production forecasts as of mid '42. Some simply did not believe it was possible, other Luftwaffe Generals wanted to stop bomber production so that everything could be concentrated on fighters. IIRC, the extreme response to the plausible threat from the U.S. was not taken in that the war in the east was suppose to be largely over so the Luftwaffe could return to the west in numbers.

On a related thought; the U.S. high command was not worried about the Germans capturing the Caucasian oil centers. Apparently the Brits were. It had bee reasoned out that even with a huge increase in fuel supplies for the Luftwaffe, they were a spent force. The reduction of quality trainers for the Luftwaffe was an ever ongoing event with one "emergency" after another. Even with higher production and an increase in fuel, the problems would become insurmountable. The time that was required to train new units and aircrew was just no longer available to the Luftwaffe before the hammer would fall. That was the US view in late '42 anyway.

The critical years for the Luftwaffe expansion was '40-'41. This is another reason why the higher production in the early years of the war were critical. They needed training a/c by the thousands. Losses of first line a/c due to training accidents were very high-something like 1 plane for 5 pilots. These were problems the RAF anticipated-and somewhat avoided. Although the RAF actually lost more a/c from accident than from combat for a long time-they kept churning out the aviators and planes until they were on top of the situation.

This conversation reminds me of a great book I have on the air war. Its not about the battles per se, but the overall organization of the various air forces, training, research control and industrial policies-complete with numbers. I will find that sometime in the next day and post its title/author. It was fascinating stuff.

Pretty interesting, but as far as ready pilots and number of capable planes, do recall the match here. We're talking about guys, who as late as the Poltava Incident, were parking their planes willy nilly, often in plain view, off the runways, and often didn't bother to flatten out the ground very much (so their takeoffs weren't very smooth). This of course would describe the USSR aircrews. If generalizations can be trusted, while the Luftwaffe may have had more complicated, or even more delicate planes, "may", the Red Air Force treated their machines like garbage, so I wouldn't exactly expect their service ratio to be too terribly high in comparison. There was a period of complete domination by the Luftwaffe against the RAF (Red Air Force), and then at some point, in operational machines anyway, there was parity, but even then the Luftwaffe had a considerable edge. Then came the period of the drain, where more and more was being sent to battle the strategic offensives, and as a result the USSR RAF got something approaching dominance. It wasn't that the Luftwaffe did so poorly with what they had as to why they would lose the edge somewhere, but because they were often having to split their forces, even more so than the armies usually, to fight nations that were putting almost all of their aerial power against them.

Artificial germany, again, never would have had the slightest problem with the USSR RAF, especially after that romp of a start, but unlike the USSR for the most part, they had other battles to fight, so there were as in all cases with the germans, periods of superiority, periods of parity, and then periods of inferiority.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 20

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 2:54:20 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Another problem with German manufacturing was that the Nazi ideal of German womanhood didn't include her working on the factory floor but staying at home and producing sons for the nation. In this way Germany essentially underutilized a large percentage of their potential workforce which forced them into the policies of enforced work from war prisoners and all the problems and inefficiencies that resulted. By the time the Nazi regime woke up to the realities of the situation it was much too late. There was certainly a sense of overconfidence that the stunning early successes of the war created. I think the invasion of Russia was seen, by Hitler at least, as the capstone of a brilliant series conquests that would be secured rather quickly.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 21

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 3:14:39 PM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

soldier equaled, on average, the german soldier, and comrade Stalin made sure of that with the 30's -and- 40's purges.

From all the faulty statement, let's take this one.

While I agree on the first part of the statement about the quality, the reason given is just.. not correct.

Let's first take some numbers:

In 1937 form 144300 of all officers 11034 were "purged", i.e. not restored in their ranks until the 1940, which is 7.7%. In 1938 6742 out of 179000 commanders were "purged" - 3.3%. I'm not justifying purges, many talented commander did suffered, but 6% is not the decisive factor in quality of officers, not speaking the quality of soldiers.

The real cause of the bad quality was the "explosive" growth of RedArmy
Rank\1936\1941
Colonels\1714\4788
Lieutenant Colonels\-\7246
Majors\5501\20430
Captains\14369\47710
Sen.lieutenants\26082\50619
Lieutenants\58582\147320
Jun.lieutenants\-\95797
Totals\106247\373910

So in 4 years officers Corps grew 3 times! No doubts that country which suffered from World War, Civil War, etc, where mandatory 7-year elementary education was first time implemented in 1928(!), couldn't prepare that many "good" officers in time. The same reasons were behind quality of soldier and the Army as such.

Btw, German had superiority not only versus Soviets. Can't miss the opportunity to repost formulas from Zetterling's Normandy book.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 22

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 3:45:06 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

soldier equaled, on average, the german soldier, and comrade Stalin made sure of that with the 30's -and- 40's purges.

From all the faulty statement, let's take this one.

While I agree on the first part of the statement about the quality, the reason given is just.. not correct.

Let's first take some numbers:

In 1937 form 144300 of all officers 11034 were "purged", i.e. not restored in their ranks until the 1940, which is 7.7%. In 1938 6742 out of 179000 commanders were "purged" - 3.3%. I'm not justifying purges, many talented commander did suffered, but 6% is not the decisive factor in quality of officers, not speaking the quality of soldiers.

Well, if we are to talk about errors

You fail to mention the spreadsheet of officers purged.
Marshals - 3/5
Army commanders - 13/15
Army Corps commanders - 50/57
Division commanders - 154/186
Admirals 8/9

The purge thus became very heavy at the top, and if it is something the history of warfare should have thought us, it is that a guy performing well at a certain level in the army might not perform too well higher up in the system. And the low percentages you present becomes something misguiding IMO.

It is claimed that in the end the Red Army came out ahead due to the rising of very capable commanders, but in the opening phases there is little doubt that the removal of so many high ranking officers were a big handicap.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 23

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 3:54:45 PM

V22 Osprey

Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

Germany could have easily won if:
-They didnt continue the campaign through the winter.Hitler should should have had his divisions dig in for the winter and resume the attack in the spring.

-Hitler should have liberated the Arabs in the Mideast from the British.If he would have done that, he would have had the Arabs backing he up in the North African campaign, quickly defeating the allies.This would have let him put his resources on eastern front.Note that when the Allies got into italy, Hitler had to transfer a good portion of his tanks to the western front, tanks that could be fighting the Soviets.

-Hitler shouldn't have tried to get into everything.From what I've seen, Hitler did not know how to command an army.Everytime he got into thing he screwed it up.I think that because he was so impatient and thought that his army was invincible, and instead left the army biz up to the ACTUAL military commanders, I think he couuld have won.One example is stalingrad.If he would have allowed his army in stalingrad to retreat, he wouldn't have lost 200,000 men right there.

< Message edited by V22 Osprey -- 7/1/2009 3:57:19 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 24

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 3:56:10 PM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Well, if we are to talk about errors
You fail to mention the spreadsheet of officers purged.
Marshals - 3/5
Army commanders - 13/15
Army Corps commanders - 50/57
Division commanders - 154/186
Admirals 8/9

hmm... since divisions were under command of colonels in Red Army most of this numbers were included.

All of this doesn't change the fact - it's not decisive factor of poor quality of soldiers

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 25

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 4:21:52 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

Well, if we are to talk about errors
You fail to mention the spreadsheet of officers purged.
Marshals - 3/5
Army commanders - 13/15
Army Corps commanders - 50/57
Division commanders - 154/186
Admirals 8/9

hmm... since divisions were under command of colonels in Red Army most of this numbers were included.

All of this doesn't change the fact - it's not decisive factor of poor quality of soldiers

True, but your number of 7.7 and 6% of officers purged is misleading. That is a percentage by all officers in the red army, what I am pointing out is that the senior officers suffered way higher losses, and that IMO was a thing the Red Army suffered for during the opening stages.

And no matter how good a soldier you are, if inproper led, the quality of the soldiers loses alot of importance.

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 26

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 4:32:29 PM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

True, but your number of 7.7 and 6% of officers purged is misleading. That is a percentage by all officers in the red army, what I am pointing out is that the senior officers suffered way higher losses, and that IMO was a thing the Red Army suffered for during the opening stages.

And no matter how good a soldier you are, if inproper led, the quality of the soldiers loses alot of importance.

No, number are not misleading, they are pointing exactly to the Achilles heel of Soviet Army - the lack of low-rank commanders. And no matter how good is the marshal's or general's order, if chain of command down to squad is incapable to fulfill it there won't be any good. In opposite, sometimes good low-ranked officers can fight well without high supervision, which was the strongest point of German Army.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 27

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 5:14:25 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

The Purges certainly eliminated some quality commanders but also some weak links as well. I think the greatest damage of the Purges was the amount of fear that was introduced and the effect that this had on the initiative of those that survived. Any deviation from direct orders was potentially deadly. After the first couple of years this became less of a problem in the Russian Army and more so for the Germans; at higher levels at least. The Germans always maintained the edge in small unit leadership and initiative.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 28

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 6:11:15 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

I'm going to keep this simple as everyone here has presented superb points about operational and strategic perspectives.

Simply, it was Germany's failure at diplomacy. Specifically allowing the USA to get involved with their(Germany's) DoW, I believe on Dec. 10, 1941. That and inconjunction with not pursuading Japan to attack USSR from the East.

Conclusion: After France fell, Germany had the capability to keep UK on the ropes for an extended period of time through greater prosecution of Donitz's Uboat strategy and better use of the Luftwaffe, BoB was a mistake.

Murmansk and Vladivostok (lendlease entry ports) could have been cut off. As presented in an earlier post, the Italians should have been left in NA to wither on the vine. Later, in any consequential invasion of the northern Med area by UK, the foray could have easily been contained. No need for Balkan intervention or the subsequent invasion of Greece or the airborne assault on Crete.
In fact it would present an even greater opportunity to "bleed" the UK.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a diplomatic success for Germany, but later that success was not fully taken advantage of, especially the fuel aspects. You can imagine what that extra energy would have done.

Could Germany have subjugated the entire USSR? Perhaps not, but I feel truly confident that the USSR could have been made to sue for peace and Germany would have gotten some very nice accomodations. So good in fact, that the UK could have been taken out after the signing of the armistice.

All the while the USA sits on the sidelines with FDR's regime chomping at the bit to get in, but the American Congress and people keeping up a thorough roadblock to not subsidize the British Empire.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 29

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR? - 7/1/2009 7:18:46 PM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

With proper hindsight Im sure its possible.

_____________________________

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."� Edmund Burke

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 30