An American Analysis of Operation Barbarossa

[whukid]

Again even with BagrationHitler was partly at fault,  the Kommandant of the Armee gruppe Mittel, a man appointed  by Hitler becasue not of his military skills but because of his absolute loyalty to him

He successfully repelled 2 RKKA offensives as a commander of army group though. But failed at third.

had asked Hitler to shorten his front as there was a bulge which he feared the Soviets would use to make a pincer attack against his forces from the Baltic area and from the Ukraine. Hitler , faithful to the end to his never yield an inch policy, refused putting the AGM in danger.

In 1943 the Soviet forces didn't make anything to shorten Kursk bulge too, but prepared and successfully defended against the German offensive.

It sounds a bit funny

Why? From 1943 every German offensive either failed (Kursk, Narew, Balaton) or ended in a stalemate.

So, du u think that Soviet Union was a winner with German without help of allies?

After Stalingrad and Kursk  the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.

As my point, would be better to say that Nazi German was overrun by Allies

I think it would be better to say that Axis nations were overrun by Allies.

Just because someone is appointed for political skills doesn't mean they can't get lucky or that his soldiers won't fight hard. For example, most officers in the US Army during Desert Storm 1 were commissioned because of their political status within the Army chain of command, yet the Americans still mopped the floor with the Iraqi's. Every offensive after 1943 was fought against an enemy with vast numerical superiority and with massive handicaps, such as fuel shortages, manpower shortages, material shortages, ect. Attributing the German failures to soviet soldiers being "better" is about 10% of the story. If anything, they lost because their factories and refineries were being bombed into submission and the Allies in the West had opened up another two fronts for which the germans had to defend.

Stalingrad was a result of Hitlers' stupidness, but Kursk had little to do with the Russians in terms of victory. The same day as Prokhorovka, the Allies invaded Sicily, causing Italy to fold. Hitler ordered an end to Citadelle and sent Model's forces to Kesserling in Italy while leaving Manstein extremely vulnerable in the South. The Soviets banked heavily on this twist of events and the rest is history. Without the Allies, the Soviets would've lost 70% of their entire armored corps in the Kursk pocket, as well as  a decent chunk of their motorized divisions, because Model would've stayed in the North and Manstein would've closed the pocket after destroying the Soviet reserves on the 10th.

Even had the soviets won at Kursk, there would've been nothing stopping the German Industrial machine without the Allies. Their cities would've remained un touched by war, especially the Industrial parks of Northwest Germany and France, and a large chunk of their army could've been used to instead been used against the Soviets in the East, especially heavy equipment like Tiger 2's or Jagdtigers. Without the Allies, the war would've ended in a German Victory or a stalemate, costing the Soviets millions of more lives.

For example, the V1's and V2's being used against the Allies would've been used against the Soviets, as well as the majority of the German Fighter-arm. Many of the German armored units and Fallschimjager regiments would've been present in Russia during 1944, not the French coast

[frinik]

 I agree entirely wiht you Whukid, wihtotu having to fight on 2 or 3 fronts had Germany been able to muster all its forces agains the Soviets then Soviet victory would have been impossible an dlikewise German victory.Hence a bloody stalemate perhaps like in Korea.

1) the Soviets did not have long range bombers capable of bombing German industry, logistics and fuel plants and as you pointed out and as I did too Allied but especially American ones severely disrupted German industrial production, transports and logistics but as importantly forced Germany to mobilise 1 million men in Air Defence and pull a lot of Lutwaffe units back to the Reich giving the Allies air superiority on the battlefields by late 1943 and essentially depriving the retreating Wehrmacht of a precious asset which it had used effectively in the East against Soviet offensives and defensives actions.Thus the air war against Germany opened a 3rd front which diverted even more resources from the East front. 70% of all German forces were in the East; had the Germans beeen able to field a full 100% without any disruption to their armement production and logistics the war in the East would have looked very different.All the Germans generals would have been able to focus on the Ost Front only and thinking of the material used for the Atalantic wall being used to blolters defences in the Ukraine...

[Flashburn]

After Stalingrad and Kursk  the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.

Had Germany been able to only fight the Soviet Union in 1942-43 without having to worry about the Allies in the West it would have been able to fight the Soviets to stalemate.  Even after Kursk.

Flashburn; I am not sure had the Uk been out of fight the Americans would not have been so interested in taking Germany down.They would have turned their attention to the Japanese as they were more of an immediate threat to them . As for the Atom bomb it was developed more with Japan in mind than Germany.I think the US would have kept it as a trump card against either winner of a German-Soviet war.

As for Nazi Germany being evil no question about it( the regime not the people) but a Stalinist Soviet Union ( again the regime not it's people) was very close behind in term of sheer brutality and murderous ideology.

As for the Western democracies they had their own baggage as well;systemic racism, colonialism etc...

No US policy was always get Germany defeated as #1 priority.  85 percent of the war effort had always gone East not West.  After mid 42 after the Battle of midway Japan was going to loose.  They had a brief window to cause havok with no abilty to take out North America.  All the US had to do was hold on to it hand and wait for the ship writghts to bump out a zillion ships.  And that was only a small percentage of US war production. At that time the US could produce and provide more than enough war material for itself and most of the allies needs.  What kept the US out of the war eariler was not the US's leaders ship.  FDR started many a crash program in the late 30's and in 40 and 41.  Hell how many old destroyers and frigates where send to GB and even the Soviets?   BEfore the US got all the way in?  The Americian people did not want to get into a "European" war again.  But it would have happened sooner or later with out the Japanese attacking.  The US Navy was allready in the fight against nazi U boats before the war got started.  US Merchant fleet was getting slaughtered getting supplies to to GB and and the Soviet Union.  Everyone new Stalin was sicko but he just killed is own people for the most part.  Ok the Finns and Poles too.  But Hitler and a fully militarized Germany with a new Navy they where just getting started on was a HUGE threat. An the US had vary good ties to France and Britian. 

And to say the Abomb was intended for JApan is untrue.  It was intended to make war against the US so bad and to stop the war. Period.  If the allies where kicked out of Europe IT would have been Berlin nuked in a massive decapitation attack.  It was known that Germany was working on simular things.  Hitler with a freaken Abomb is truelly to horiblable to imagine.  Stalin at least was more concerned with screwing over his own than striking outward but who knows. 

By the way if GB was getting over run do you really thinnk the US would sit it out?  I am pretty sure we would have sent everything we could to get out as many people as we could.  The US may act retarded quite alot in foriegn policy but we know true EVil when we see it.  Plus in those days it was a much different country.  We may not have wanted to get in the war but how many US sailors died before the US was in the war?

[Tac Error]

Might interest you guys...

[frinik]

Hitler with a freaken Abomb is truelly to horiblable to imagine.  Stalin at least was more concerned with screwing over his own than striking outward but who knows. 

Here I am not so sure Flashburn, for example Germany had considerable stocks of poison gas , sabun, tari etc..Ther Germans were the inventors and number one manufacturers of very lethal toxic gases.Yet never once even when he was clearly losing and V-1,V-2 rockets were raining on London , did he authorise its use.Not even against the Soviets...Iam not sure he would have use the A Bomb either had he possessed it.

[Flashburn]

Hitler with a freaken Abomb is truelly to horiblable to imagine.  Stalin at least was more concerned with screwing over his own than striking outward but who knows. 

Here I am not so sure Flashburn, for example Germany had considerable stocks of poison gas , sabun, tari etc..Ther Germans were the inventors and number one manufacturers of very lethal toxic gases.Yet never once even when he was clearly losing and V-1,V-2 rockets were raining on London , did he authorise its use.Not even against the Soviets...Iam not sure he would have use the A Bomb either had he possessed it.

But there are counters to the use of nerve agents and poison gasses.  There is no way to wipe enough of your enemy out that they will not come back and do the same to you.  Noone knew the long term effects of nukes.  It was thought that it was just a big ole bomb by most big wigs.  And hitler did have no problem using that crap on people that could not fight back.  Balance of terror keeps evil bastards in check.  What if he had used poison gas and the like on the Red Army in the final days?  Or dropped that crap on London or Brussels?  Out come would still be the same.  BUT I don't think the German civie population would fair to well after that.  Or for that matter German POW's in allied camps might not fair to well either.   I do find it odd thats its considered ok to blow people up and burn people up, but poison people up is not ok.  But what WOULD have been the response of the ALLIES if London had been gassed?   I am sure there where stock piles of evil crap under guard somewhere in the UK.  Just in case....  Im sure the Soviets did too. 

ON the nuke issue....

You could send 400 or 500 bombers over a city with fire bombs and wipe out 100000 people in a night.......  But the high ups would come out just fine in their bunkers.  Their bunker is not going to do crap against a nuke and its fall out.  Those 8000 mile range bombers Germany had one the drawing board.....  Well thank god we will never know.  But the XB39 COULD fly from Eastern sea board US to Europe.......and back.   Just was not needed thank gawd. 

[Mistwalker]

Every offensive after 1943 was fought against an enemy with vast numerical superiority and with massive handicaps, such as fuel shortages, manpower shortages, material shortages, ect.

Then they should've aimed for more reasonable goals.
If the military operation fails (goals aren't reached) because of the reasons mentioned above - I'd say this is a poorly planned and executed operation. Correct?

If anything, they lost because their factories and refineries were being bombed into submission and the Allies in the West had opened up another two fronts for which the germans had to defend.

Even before the bombings started to take any noticeable effect, German forces failed at Kursk, they couldn't hold Mius Front, they couldn't hold Dniepr and Eastern Ukraine, they retreated from Leningrad. Soviet Union retrieved back most of the lost territories, the industry produced more weapons, the army had more soldiers.  It was already too late to turn the tides in 1944.

Lets take just one example. In 1944 the soviet armor industry produced 500 heavy tanks and spgs (ISU-122/152) and 1200 medium tanks in a month. At it's best times german armor industry could only dream of such numbers.

Stalingrad was a result of Hitlers' stupidness, but Kursk had little to do with the Russians in terms of victory. The same day as Prokhorovka, the Allies invaded Sicily, causing Italy to fold. Hitler ordered an end to Citadelle and sent Model's forces to Kesserling in Italy while leaving Manstein extremely vulnerable in the South.

It's a common myth.  The only one division sent to Italy from Kursk was LSSAH. But before that it handed over the remaining tanks to "Totenkopf" and "Das Reich". The last 2 divisions remained in the East and were sent to Mius Front _after_ the operation was terminated. Also that were Manstein's forces not Model's.

 "Zitadelle" stopped not because of the allies, but because German forces in the north did not reach their goals and the Soviet offensive started at June 12 (Orel operation). And so any success achieved on the south was practically rendered useless.
Here's the illustration that shows the situation perfectly:

[whukid]

The Soviet Counter Attack had begun on 12 July, by which time the recent Allied invasion of Sicily had forced Hitler to abandon Operation Zitadelle.

http://www.historynet.com/nine-days-that-shook-the-world-the-death-of-the-kursk-offensive.htm

The Soviet industry was also far from the front lines and untouched by war (the Ural factories, anyway). The German factories were under constant air bombardment from the Summer of 1942 to the end of the war. Without the bombs, the Germans could've easily doubled production

[Mistwalker]

http://www.historynet.com/nine-days-that-shook-the-world-the-death-of-the-kursk-offensive.htm

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This article doesn't say anything about how EXACTLY Allied invasion to Sicily did force Hitler to cancel the operation. Transfer of the one division LSSAH relieved of it's equipment on July 26th AFTER it was clear that Model in the north won't succeed and the soviet advance begun to threaten his forces? You can't be serious.

The German factories were under constant air bombardment from the Summer of 1942 to the end of the war.

Until 1944 those bombardments were mostly low-scale and didn't have major impact on production.

Lets see how it turned out in 1944 on the following example: Stug SPG production (One of the factories - MIAG had been bombed 7 times during the year).
Actual production:3840  vehicles
Production goals: 4305 vehicles

The difference is 1 to 1.12.  Not much.

Let's check the plant which was among the ones that suffered most severe damage - Henschel. And Tiger 2 production in 1944.

Actual production:380  vehicles
Projected production: 610 vehicles

The difference is 1 to 1.6.  Well that is more. But still far from soviet LKZ plant that produced 1475 of IS-2 heavy tanks during the last 6 months of the year (and the same amount of heavy SPGs on IS chassis).

[frinik]

Re Zhukov ; here's an excerpt form an article about him:

" Certainly the Soviet Union suffered more than any other country during the war, as the 26 million Soviet war dead testify. Part of the explanation for this extraordinary high toll is the tactics adopted by Zhukov and other Soviet commanders during the conflict.

 "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost.

That seems at odd with Zhukov the man who gave a fig about his soldiers lives.... Mind you many German generals, Schoerner in particular, were no  better.

[frinik]

The German factories were under constant air bombardment from the Summer of 1942 to the end of the war.
Until 1944 those bombardments were mostly low-scale and didn't have major impact on production.
 

Mistwalker is correct until spring 1944 the Luftwaffe and the Flak defences were successful in inflcting heavy damage to the Anglo-American bomber fleets and preventing thme form crippling productiosn and logistics.However once the Americans introduced external fuel tanks allowing their excellent P-47 and P-51 fighters to takeon the Luftwaffe then the bombing sbecame more effective and the qualitative adavantage of Allied fighter pilots forced the Luftwaffe on the defensive...By May 1944 the destruction of Germany's synthetic oil plants brought about a reduction in the training of tank and air crews and reduced the movements capabilities of German mechnized forces hammering the last nails in the coffin of the Reich.

It's tanks to Speers' organising Genius that German armement production increased and peaked in October 1994.However producing more tanks and spgs was meaningless as there was no fuel and no adequatelty trained crews to make good use of them.