|
bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/24/2011 6:06:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Klydon
quote:
ORIGINAL: bednarre
2) Why Didn't Russian Army Built Plethora of Fortifications in 1941-1942?
Regarding the end of the German offensive capability in 1941 due to Russian fortification pileup in the game, why was this not the historical Russian tactic? Any (non-Maginot) fortification line without strong reserves can be easily penetrated. Classic examples are the D-Day attacks (even Omaha Beach), the Gustav line in May 1944, and the Stalin Line in 1941. Even the imfamous West Wall, which had taken years to build, was quickly breached in several places. In this latter case it was the attacking force which lacked the needed reserves. One a line in penetrated in a few places, available attacking reserves will move in and defeat the whole line. Thus placing half (or more) of ones army in the rear building and occupying massive fortifications was not effective. It was better to use reserves on the front, especially if the tactical ability of the troops were grossly inferior to the enemy.
quote:
To be honest, I think you have a mix bag on your examples. The Gustav line has to be counted as a success for the Axis by many accounts simply because it took until May of 44 to breach it in a way to cause an Axis withdraw. The Allies actually got stuck before the line in Nov of 43 and suffered heavy casualties trying to breach it (another goal of fortifications). The West Wall was a propaganda joke by 1944 as most everything of military use had been stripped and sent to the Atlantic wall.
I can quickly think of several Russian examples of fortifications in depth that were quite effective in at least slowing the Germans down in 1941-42 and these include the defenses around Leningrad, in front of Moscow and also in Stalingrad. Kursk 43 is another example where the Russians had time (and reason) to dig lines in depth. Also realize that part of the side effects of fortifications are not only to slow an enemy down, but to also cause an inordinate amount of casualties on the enemy attempting to attack them while being able to defend with fewer forces.
The Allied to German division ratio in attacking the Gustav line was very close to 1:1 before May 1944! The line did bend but did not break, because the Allies did not have any significant reserves and because of extreme weather conditions (rain, mud, and cold). These reserves were created in May 1944 by moving most of the British 8 Army from the east coast of Italy to the west coast, and adding new divisions, principally mountain trained French forces. Second, the Gustav line was build around major rivers and mountains, which are themselves like fortifications. Finally, the Allied generalship was abysmal! A classic example in the loss of two thirds of the Texas 36th infantry division. Italy was a side-show theater as well. Tying down German troops was an Allied victory.
I think the Germans could have broken through the Leningrad defenses. The problem was there was nothing in Leningrad which rated the significant German losses taking the city block by block, ala Stalingrad. In fact, about 95% of the city of Stalingrad was captured. Moscow's fortifications were layered in belts, but this covered a realitively small area compared to the size of the Eastern front, protected a high asset location, and the German still broke through in places with very weakened and undersupplied forces! In fact the Russians had several "defensive" belts even farther away from Moscow, but the Germans went quickly through them. Kursk 43 is definitely a classic example of effective belts of fortifications. In this case the Russian Army new where the Germans were going to attack, wanted the attack, and established significant reserves. The Russians actually outnumered the Germans in the battle! Never the less, the German Army broke through most of the southern belts, and probably would have done so in the northern part with more forces. The Germans did try to build a belt of fortifications 10 miles behind the main lines in late 1944 when defending at the German border. Hitler overruled the Germans, and made the belt be placed 3 miles behind instead. The net result was that the resevers, the main belt line, and of course the first line were all overwhelmed by the Russian Army. In any case, the rear fortifications were designed to reduce the effectiveness of the massive Russian artillery forces. This merely bought time. German artillery fire control was much more flexible and waste was unacceptable.
In regard to casualties caused by fortifications, their most significant effect is reducing the casualties of the defenders due to artillery fire. The standard counter tactic was to bring high velocity guns, hopefully mechanized, and blast the fortifications. The fortifications could be reduced one by one. Another key was to use engineers with high explosives. Casualties were higher than without the fortifications, but remember that not every fort need be attacked. Breaking through a section of the line can defeat the whole line! The key is the reserves available to both the attacker and the defender. This is the same type of problem encountered by major rivers. No one seems to be complaining about attacking over them in the game!
|
|
|
|
