| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Eastern front most decisive operation?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The Eastern front most decisive operation?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Poll Question: Which one really smashed the German war machine in the East?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
3 [23.08%]
9 [69.23%]
1 [7.69%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 22:11
I shudder to think what the world would look like today if the Nazis had gained a foothold and secure docks in Britain. Thankfully Hitler was an incompentent fool in military terms.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 22:32
The other problem any invasion force would have faced is the ability of the Kriegsmarine to provide adequate protecton for the landing force, versus the numerical superiority of the Royal Navy's surface fleet. So this burden would have fallen on the Luftwaffe , which despite the presence of Ju-88 dive bombers, did not have effective torpedo bombing capabilities, and the U-boat flotillas.
 
Anyway, probably a discussion for another thread.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 04:47
For me, at least, the major folly of the Germans was to get themselves bogged down at Stalingrad, rather than take the Oil facilites near the
Black Sea, right away!

A major flaw that existed in that Super Ego of Hitler.

After that battle ended, most all hope for Hitler and his henchmen, ended. And, I also believe that the Western allies also dribbled and wasted time in their desire to really start a Western Front.

It actually made good sense to the Brits and Americans, to just let the Ruskies and the Nazis fight it out amongst one another, wasting away the power of both, just to save American, British and other Western armies lives.

But, of course Stalin also saw that he was being tricked, and forced the issue. And, except for a few exceptions, it seems the "best and the brightest" of the German armies were sent to the Eastern front, rather than to the Western. A lot of the British, French, and American divisions attacking from the West towards Berlin, faced German defenders, made up of Old Men and teen-agers, or less.

I still believe that Patton, given enough support, could have literally coasted its way to Berlin, without the heavy losses suffered due to the deal that let Stalin's forced get that trophy which caused hundreds of thousands of lives to be lost, and as well the literal division of Eastern Europe.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 05:23
Hello Ron
 
While you do have a point about the oil fields and that it was much wiser to go after them the reasons to go to Stalingrad were far more than just big egos. Stalingrad was the last major tank producing city outside of Moscow, although there were other tank factories moved to Kazan and inner cities their production wouldn't have exceeded battlefield losses until somewhere in the Spring of 43. Plus there Stalingrad was an important road and rail junction on the Volga and itself had oil production facilities (and still has). Not to mention that it made military sense too. The Caucasus is a wide steppe region in its northern section and going there without securing the Don bend and the Volga river at Stalingrad (which lies near the eastern edge of the Don bend) would expose those troops to massive Soviet counterattacks that might end (and it indeed did) in isolating large number of German troops east of the Don in the Caucasus.
 
Now for what the British and Americans have done, I don't think that letting the Russians fight their way through europe and then they come to take the trophies was on any of the Anglo-American planners minds. The situation in the eastern front was serious even after Stalingrad was won (mainly because no one had any idea how big the victory was and the German successes in other areas there). Plus the communist threat was still on their minds and no one wanted to the the national flags of western europe adorned by the Hammer and the sickle.
 
If the Anglo-American alliance could have landed in Normandy in 43 they would have done it in a heartbeat but the risks were simply too high. The near disasterous performance in Italy made them change alot of things and the battle for Normandy itself showed how even after planning for this operation for three years the allies still had a fairly good chance of losing there.
 
Now for Berlin, the Soviets had a chance to take the city in early March when they reached the Oder just 70 km from the city back in Feburary. While I still think that military reasons were the primary ones for postponing the operation until April political considerations also had to be taken into account. The Anglo-American alliance nearly broke on the issue with Churchill rightly telling the Americans about Soviet intentions and innocent FDR (who thought that Stalin would never lie to him because he used to be a priest) siding with Eisenhower who thought the prize should go the the Soivets on account of their sacrifices (and so that Montgomery who had the best chance to take the city didn't get it).
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 15 May 2011 at 09:02
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 05:29
Originally posted by jimmi jimmi wrote:

If Germany had defeated or otherwise subdued Britain in 1940, Germany would have reaped these benefits: time to continue building their military machine before invading Russia; the ability to attack Russia without Britain as an enemy in the rear; loss to the Allies of Britain as a staging area for invasion of Europe/Africa, etc. It is not all that far-fetched, that the Germans could have won the Battle of Britain. Their strategic mistake was to shift the point of attack, from the RAF (attain air superiority), to wanton and pointless destruction of British cities. The Germans were actually winning the Battle, although both sides were suffering horrendous losses, when they switched to bombing cities, etc. Once the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over Britain, an invasion (by air or sea) becomes achievable.
There was no chance of Germany winning the Battle of Britain. Britain was too far away and the loss rario in pilots as a result was far worse for Germany than the loss ratio in aricraft. Moreover IIRC British aircraft production has already passed German in 1940, and the Germans had no sophisticated bombing arm.
For instance someone mentioned the 'dive bomber' JU88, but up until 43 or so the 88 could not be used in practice as a dive bomber because the airframe wasn't strong enough to pull out of the dive: later it was used as a 'shallow' dive bomber but not till the Battle of Britain was well lost. The 87 was of course a useless aircraft in the summer of 1940.
 
 
(Remembering that Britain could afford to buy aircraft from the US.)
 
Of course I suppose you can argue that if Germany had managed to double its aircraft production, and especially given up on useless dive bombers like the JU87, and produced some advanced bombing aircraft it might have won the Battle of Britain, but given the relative industrial strength and wealth of the two countries that's well into fantasy land. And it still had the Navy to contend with.

[QUOTE]
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 05:38
My vote is for Stalingrad. Had the Germans taken Moscow, the Soviets would have merely withdrawn further East. As long as Stalin and the Party were in control, the war was going to be fought. And had the Germans prevailed at Stalingrad, the destruction of Army Group Center in 1944 would have been a very different fight, likely waged a year or two later. Single battles can determine the turning point of a war, as I believe Stalingrad did, and they can end wars, but they cannot win them, except among miniscule armies and states. Wars are won or lost by the accrued victories and defeats in battles and campaigns.

As for statements that the "German Army was defeated when..., etc." The answer is simple: When the Soviets took Berlin, and not a moment earlier. "Losing" should never be confused for "lost" or you end up with surprises like the Bulge.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 08:42
Thanks for all of the well learned responses!

Regards,
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2017 at 05:10
Originally posted by jimmi jimmi wrote:

If Germany had defeated or otherwise subdued Britain in 1940, Germany
would have reaped these benefits: time to continue building their
military machine before invading Russia; the ability to attack Russia
without Britain as an enemy in the rear; loss to the Allies of Britain
as a staging area for invasion of Europe/Africa, etc. It is not all that
far-fetched, that the Germans could have won the Battle of Britain.
Their strategic mistake was to shift the point of attack, from the RAF
(attain air superiority), to wanton and pointless destruction of British
cities. The Germans were actually winning the Battle, although both
sides were suffering horrendous losses, when they switched to bombing
cities, etc. Once the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over
Britain, an invasion (by air or sea) becomes achievable.
<div style="overflow: ; color: rgb0, 0, 0; : transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">

I have read that on the day of the last daylight bombing strike, that the Luftwaffe had essentially put the RAF out of commission. The British radar system was down AND the RAF fighter fields were non functional. Had they returned the following day, they would have met with little or no resistance. They would have been able to keep the RAF out of the battle and made their bombers 100% effective. Unfortunately for them they had no clue as to how effective they had been, and Hitler met with no opposition when he ordered the switch to night time bombing.

Go back before that. Had not Hitler and his top generals been frightened by the tiny British tank attack at Arras and issued the halt order there would have been no miracle at Dunkirk and Britain would have been knocked out of the war.


<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="154"><col width="154"><tr height="20">
<td ="xl24" style="height: 15pt; width: 116pt;" height="20" width="154">
</td></tr></table>

Wars and Battles Listed by Combatants

Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2017 at 05:37
A. Of course if the Germans had managed to take Moscow they would have won the war. And of course it was entirely possible to do so if they could have maintained unity of purpose in the campaign prior to the battle itself. For that matter if that buffoon Mussolini hadn't gotten them involved in Yugoslavia and Greece, Barbarosa would have kicked off a month earlier and allowed them 30 days of better weather to reach Moscow.

B. Of course avoiding the historical Stalingrad would have allowed the Germans to defeat the Russians. Anybody but vonPaulus could probably snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat. Any German military man worth a hill of beans could have told Hitler not to send his panzers into urban combat. Stalingrad should and could easily have been bypassed or enveloped and left to rot. And finally everybody seems to forget the fact that Stalingrad was only one part of a titanic counteroffensive that reached from Lenningrad to the Black Sea. Every where else except in the Stalingrad zone, the Russians suffered absolute failure.

C. My personal view is that Kursk was the turning point. Remember it was a German offensive. It was telegraphed by the Lucy spy ring. The Russian defenders were able to design their defenses around the specifics of the German attacks. Tacticaly, Hitler poisoned the well by ordering the panzers to abandon their standard policy of advancing only with infantry support, leaving them vulnerable to attack by Russian infantry with anti-tank weapons. And finally it was winnable. At the crucial moment when news of the Sicily landings reached Hitler he countermanded the deployment of Grosse Deutchland, Germany's largest, best trained and equipped combat division and sent it West to be used against the Brits and Americans. I believe that had they been committed at Kursk instead, they could have completed the envelopment of the Kursk salient, striking a critical blow to the Soviet Army.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.176 seconds.