Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany's strategic error? Barbarossa...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Germany's strategic error? Barbarossa...

    I have been thinking on Germany's strategic thinking in the early years of world war 2, especially in comparison to the Japanese who made a definitve and obvious strategic error at Pearl Habour. Operation Barbarossa is clearly remembered as a major strategic error where the germans understimated Soviet tank production, morale, soviet reserves and a failure to prepare for the operational challenes of a long campaign over the wide geogpraphical expanses of the soviet union and its difficult winter weather.

    But is this perspective suffering from Hindsight bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias or was Hitlers penchant for optimism and a gamble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias the defining feature of Barbarossa from a strategic perspective?

    It seems reasonable to me that if the german victories of 41/42 had been explained to thinkers in 1940 the expectation would have predicted a soviet collapse and the removal of stalin, a la 1917.

    This is not a gamble based on an operational or strategic analysis, but other qualities such as morale, politics and psychology. If that gambit wins, Germany win even though they made a "strategic" error.

    Hitler infamously predicted a rapid german victory after watching the soviet invasion of Finland and didn't even fully ramp the german war economy upon the lauch of Barbarossa. But perhaps his greatest error was not sticking to his gambit and pursuing the capture of Moscow instead of focusing north and south and the capture of yet more soviet armies. To pursue a strategy that forced the soviets out of the war by not actually winning it on the battlefield...

    Wasn't the damage inflicted on the soviet union enough to reasonaly expect a collpase witthout the rapid fall of moscow? I find it remarkable that both the soviet union and stalin managed to hold together in 1941 and 1942. Logic would dictate that when the chips were down that stalins past actions would leave him terminally weak in this moment. Hindsight suggests his purges may have helped him. i think you have to forget that it actually happened and you cant study the reasons why after the fact. The failure of the soviet union to collpase under the rapid damage inflicted was truly remarkable and this made germanys invasion look particurly and perhaps unfairly foolish with hindsight.

  • #2
    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
    I have been thinking on Germany's strategic thinking in the early years of world war 2, especially in comparison to the Japanese who made a definitve and obvious strategic error at Pearl Habour. Operation Barbarossa is clearly remembered as a major strategic error where the germans understimated Soviet tank production, morale, soviet reserves and a failure to prepare for the operational challenes of a long campaign over the wide geogpraphical expanses of the soviet union and its difficult winter weather.
    I'm going to quibble a bit here. Strategically Pearl Harbour makes more sense than invading Russia and was done for more logical reasons.

    Given the US sanctions on Japan and America's strength & strategic position the choice was to abandon hopes of a larger empire and many existing gains or try to beat the US rapidly into submission. Remember that the other part of the plan was removing the threat of US forces in the Philippines to Japan's supply of oil. While hindsight tells us this was a doomed endeavour, and some in Japan's military certainly underestimated how dangerous the US might be, American isolationism & reluctance to get dragged into WW1 & WW2 certainly provided some grounds to hope that a big enough blow might lead to a negotiated settlement of some sort. It was a lot more logical than expecting a nation that you plan to utterly destroy will throw in the towel while it has any resources with which to fight.

    But is this perspective suffering from Hindsight bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias or was Hitlers penchant for optimism and a gamble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias the defining feature of Barbarossa from a strategic perspective?

    It seems reasonable to me that if the german victories of 41/42 had been explained to thinkers in 1940 the expectation would have predicted a soviet collapse and the removal of stalin, a la 1917.

    This is not a gamble based on an operational or strategic analysis, but other qualities such as morale, politics and psychology. If that gambit wins, Germany win even though they made a "strategic" error.

    Hitler infamously predicted a rapid german victory after watching the soviet invasion of Finland and didn't even fully ramp the german war economy upon the lauch of Barbarossa. But perhaps his greatest error was not sticking to his gambit and pursuing the capture of Moscow instead of focusing north and south and the capture of yet more soviet armies. To pursue a strategy that forced the soviets out of the war by not actually winning it on the battlefield...

    Wasn't the damage inflicted on the soviet union enough to reasonaly expect a collpase witthout the rapid fall of moscow? I find it remarkable that both the soviet union and stalin managed to hold together in 1941 and 1942. Logic would dictate that when the chips were down that stalins past actions would leave him terminally weak in this moment. Hindsight suggests his purges may have helped him. i think you have to forget that it actually happened and you cant study the reasons why after the fact. The failure of the soviet union to collpase under the rapid damage inflicted was truly remarkable and this made germanys invasion look particurly and perhaps unfairly foolish with hindsight.
    The first thing to remember about Barbarossa is that unless Hitler suddenly drops dead, it is going to happen. Invading, depopulating and colonizing Russia is basically Hitler's major motivation for doing a whole bunch of stuff. This is how he permenantly reshapes Europe to make Germany the dominate power. It is not optional and Germany is never going to be in a better position than in 1941. I know that kinda kills most of your points because the idea that people were sitting around calculating the odds doesn't really apply.

    Were there valid reasons to believe that Russia might collapse under a heavy blow? Sure, to a point. The Red Army had been poor in Finland and Germany had just crushed France & driven Britain from the continent. However, both the Red Army and Russia were very big and there were very real problems in the Germany Army (In particular) that were either unexamined or wilfully ignored - logistical problems leap to mind. There was also a serious underestimation of the Red Army that would untimately come back to bite Germany.

    The problem is that the Red Army not only was not as bad as some Germans wanted to believe, it was also not as bad as the German-influenced accounts that have spent generations informing english-speaking histories of the war. The German officers whose accounts were so influential in shaping perceptions of the Eastern front in the absence of Russian accounts were all too quick to blame Hitler, winter, 'Russian hordes' etc. for everything. The reason Germany failed in 1941 is that the Red Army fought a great deal more effectively than it has often been given credit for. That is one of the reasons the race to Moscow slowed. Not because Hitler was a stupid nupty who kept messing up the perfect plans of his generals, but because the Red Army fought long enough & hard enough to constitute an ongoing threat to German forces in the centre & south. Plenty of plaudits have been given to Russian fighting in 1942, 43 etc., but not enough credit has been given for 1941. The effective resistance gets lost among the disasters.

    Oh, the other reason Germany slowed down was something I mentioned before - logistics. Those forward units outran their ability to be supplied. Russia is big and the roads in 1941 were few and poor. This was known, but Germany pretended it could somehow ignore it. Turns out distance and supply don't care about intent. The advance was out of puff before winter arrived.

    One more point. Germany was going into Russia to exterminate & occupy. That was the point. While Russia may not have known all the details, the Russian state & plenty of its citizens would have been under little doubt that Germany meant to destroy their nation. There was a history of letting invading armies tire themselves out on the steppe and strategic depth that is difficult to comprehend. I live in an absurdly big country, and Russia dwarfs Australia. Again, the failure og Germany to view Russia as they might view themselves is instructive. Would Germans just lay down if an invading army bent on the utter destruction of their nation was invading? Of course not...and in the end they did not. It was indeed foolish to assume Russians wouldn't fight like crazy to avoid destruction & extermination.

    Anyway, I'm rambling a bit. Sorry. :)
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

      I'm going to quibble a bit here. Strategically Pearl Harbour makes more sense than invading Russia and was done for more logical reasons.

      Given the US sanctions on Japan and America's strength & strategic position the choice was to abandon hopes of a larger empire and many existing gains or try to beat the US rapidly into submission. Remember that the other part of the plan was removing the threat of US forces in the Philippines to Japan's supply of oil. While hindsight tells us this was a doomed endeavour, and some in Japan's military certainly underestimated how dangerous the US might be, American isolationism & reluctance to get dragged into WW1 & WW2 certainly provided some grounds to hope that a big enough blow might lead to a negotiated settlement of some sort. It was a lot more logical than expecting a nation that you plan to utterly destroy will throw in the towel while it has any resources with which to fight.

      Even with a healthy fear of getting sidetracked just want to reply to this first. I agree with what you say but i guess it depends on what one calls strategic. I think Germnay had a far greater chance of victory than Japan from an 1940 perspective, but Japan has "better" reasons. I think its reasonable for Japan in 1940 to hope a successful pearl harbour may have motivated the usa to negotiate but I think this was built on a delusional premise, 1940 or hindsight available. Ironically USA may have just stayed out of it or negotiated quickly without an attack on home soil....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

        I'm going to quibble a bit here. Strategically Pearl Harbour makes more sense than invading Russia and was done for more logical reasons.

        Given the US sanctions on Japan and America's strength & strategic position the choice was to abandon hopes of a larger empire and many existing gains or try to beat the US rapidly into submission. Remember that the other part of the plan was removing the threat of US forces in the Philippines to Japan's supply of oil. While hindsight tells us this was a doomed endeavour, and some in Japan's military certainly underestimated how dangerous the US might be, American isolationism & reluctance to get dragged into WW1 & WW2 certainly provided some grounds to hope that a big enough blow might lead to a negotiated settlement of some sort. It was a lot more logical than expecting a nation that you plan to utterly destroy will throw in the towel while it has any resources with which to fight.



        The first thing to remember about Barbarossa is that unless Hitler suddenly drops dead, it is going to happen. Invading, depopulating and colonizing Russia is basically Hitler's major motivation for doing a whole bunch of stuff. This is how he permenantly reshapes Europe to make Germany the dominate power. It is not optional and Germany is never going to be in a better position than in 1941. I know that kinda kills most of your points because the idea that people were sitting around calculating the odds doesn't really apply.

        Were there valid reasons to believe that Russia might collapse under a heavy blow? Sure, to a point. The Red Army had been poor in Finland and Germany had just crushed France & driven Britain from the continent. However, both the Red Army and Russia were very big and there were very real problems in the Germany Army (In particular) that were either unexamined or wilfully ignored - logistical problems leap to mind. There was also a serious underestimation of the Red Army that would untimately come back to bite Germany.

        The problem is that the Red Army not only was not as bad as some Germans wanted to believe, it was also not as bad as the German-influenced accounts that have spent generations informing english-speaking histories of the war. The German officers whose accounts were so influential in shaping perceptions of the Eastern front in the absence of Russian accounts were all too quick to blame Hitler, winter, 'Russian hordes' etc. for everything. The reason Germany failed in 1941 is that the Red Army fought a great deal more effectively than it has often been given credit for. That is one of the reasons the race to Moscow slowed. Not because Hitler was a stupid nupty who kept messing up the perfect plans of his generals, but because the Red Army fought long enough & hard enough to constitute an ongoing threat to German forces in the centre & south. Plenty of plaudits have been given to Russian fighting in 1942, 43 etc., but not enough credit has been given for 1941. The effective resistance gets lost among the disasters.

        Oh, the other reason Germany slowed down was something I mentioned before - logistics. Those forward units outran their ability to be supplied. Russia is big and the roads in 1941 were few and poor. This was known, but Germany pretended it could somehow ignore it. Turns out distance and supply don't care about intent. The advance was out of puff before winter arrived.

        One more point. Germany was going into Russia to exterminate & occupy. That was the point. While Russia may not have known all the details, the Russian state & plenty of its citizens would have been under little doubt that Germany meant to destroy their nation. There was a history of letting invading armies tire themselves out on the steppe and strategic depth that is difficult to comprehend. I live in an absurdly big country, and Russia dwarfs Australia. Again, the failure og Germany to view Russia as they might view themselves is instructive. Would Germans just lay down if an invading army bent on the utter destruction of their nation was invading? Of course not...and in the end they did not. It was indeed foolish to assume Russians wouldn't fight like crazy to avoid destruction & extermination.

        Anyway, I'm rambling a bit. Sorry. :)
        Ok lets deal with your final point before I circle back. In the context of what Iam trying to say, I have to freely admit you are right. I did't give enough thought to the fact that Hitler had framed it as the total destuction of the slavic peoples. In world war 1 it was clear that it had similarities to other european wars and that they were not wars of annihilation, Elements in Russia clearly new they could negotiate with germany in 1917 and grab power. This was the normal expectation in wars in europe for centuries. That set the backdrop for a coup as there was an alternative choice. I somehow missed the importance of this.

        To play the devils advocate on this, it's worth trying to think from a 1940 perspective, could hitler and the germans still have spun the propaganda narrative that they would negotiate with regime change. I suppose the cat was out of the bag for the soviets that germany of 1940 could not be reasoned with. Given that the brutality of stalins regime exceeded that of the tsar there was an opportunity but no ideology was ready in 1940 to bring about revolution.

        The annoying thing (for this thread) is I want to ignore the interesting technical reasons why germany lost. When the stock market collapes the exact nature and timing is near impossible to predict, there is a pullback and then sentiment can collape creating a feedback loop and panic and sell offs ensues. This can be lurking below the surface yet go undetected even by experts on the watch.. We should consider the possibility that some wars are won but the winners were perilously close to collapse without people even knowing. Like the morning before a stock market collpase when everything seems fine. Humans are evolutionary biased to coherent stories were all the facts fit to tell a story that makes sense, we dont like luck, complexity, chaos and uncertainty.

        I agree with your central premise that a soviet coup was rendered considerably less likely due to the declared intention of Hitler. Under other circumstanes the massive damage inflicted on the soviets in the early years may have produced a different decisive outcome despite the fact it did not produce a decisive military outcome.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tantalus View Post
          Even with a healthy fear of getting sidetracked just want to reply to this first. I agree with what you say but i guess it depends on what one calls strategic. I think Germnay had a far greater chance of victory than Japan from an 1940 perspective, but Japan has "better" reasons. I think its reasonable for Japan in 1940 to hope a successful pearl harbour may have motivated the usa to negotiate but I think this was built on a delusional premise, 1940 or hindsight available. Ironically USA may have just stayed out of it or negotiated quickly without an attack on home soil....
          The US already had sanctions on Japan, so America was very much 'in' and Japan couldn't just carry on. Oil was going ot run out and Japan's path to getting more had the US in its way. Perhaps if Japan had held off occupying French Indochina they could have ridden out US unhappiness at what was happening in China. However, I'm not sure if it was forseeable to Japan that the US would play hardball. From the US POV Europe looked lost to the Nazis, so Japan expanding into Sth East Asia wasn't something it would stand by & watch.

          I agree that Japan was engaging in some major wishful thinking when it came to attacking the US, but I don't think it was so much more than Germany invading Russia that they are in different universes.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tantalus View Post
            Ok lets deal with your final point before I circle back. In the context of what Iam trying to say, I have to freely admit you are right. I did't give enough thought to the fact that Hitler had framed it as the total destuction of the slavic peoples. In world war 1 it was clear that it had similarities to other european wars and that they were not wars of annihilation, Elements in Russia clearly new they could negotiate with germany in 1917 and grab power. This was the normal expectation in wars in europe for centuries. That set the backdrop for a coup as there was an alternative choice. I somehow missed the importance of this.

            To play the devils advocate on this, it's worth trying to think from a 1940 perspective, could hitler and the germans still have spun the propaganda narrative that they would negotiate with regime change. I suppose the cat was out of the bag for the soviets that germany of 1940 could not be reasoned with. Given that the brutality of stalins regime exceeded that of the tsar there was an opportunity but no ideology was ready in 1940 to bring about revolution.
            The thing about 1917 was that Lenin & co initially negotiated with Germany because it was a secondary threat to them. The primary threat was other Russians. Even then, what Germany took provided a fair warning to future Russian governments. Brest-Litovsk didn't just take the traditional few border provinces, it cut deep into territory Russia saw as heartland. One only need read Mein Kampf or listen to countless utterances to see that Adolf wasn't going to stop there, and I'm sure at least some of the comradeswere wel lacquanted with his views. Germany had already occupied every nation it conquered, with the French getting a puppet state in the southern third of their nation. Even without that, early reports of what was going on behind the lines of advance would have given a hint that this wasn't a WW1 style German army.

            The annoying thing (for this thread) is I want to ignore the interesting technical reasons why germany lost. When the stock market collapes the exact nature and timing is near impossible to predict, there is a pullback and then sentiment can collape creating a feedback loop and panic and sell offs ensues. This can be lurking below the surface yet go undetected even by experts on the watch.. We should consider the possibility that some wars are won but the winners were perilously close to collapse without people even knowing. Like the morning before a stock market collpase when everything seems fine. Humans are evolutionary biased to coherent stories were all the facts fit to tell a story that makes sense, we dont like luck, complexity, chaos and uncertainty.

            I agree with your central premise that a soviet coup was rendered considerably less likely due to the declared intention of Hitler. Under other circumstanes the massive damage inflicted on the soviets in the early years may have produced a different decisive outcome despite the fact it did not produce a decisive military outcome.
            Unfortunately for you the 'interesting technical' stuff is what really matters here.

            While Germany certainly had some reasons to believe that Russia might collapse, that belief was based in part on ignorance and in part on wishful thinking. German intel on Russia was poor. At the start of the war they barely even knew who was running the Red Army. Worse, they assumed that Russia might be able to stand up 50 divisions of reserves in response to an invasion. Russia stood up something like 800. Yes, that is not a typo. That is an order of magnitude error on par with Japan & Pearl Harbour.

            In part based on this miscalculation, the German Army assumed the war in Russia would be over by Christmas. Ironically, they assumed a longer war against France, which had a smaller army & vastly less strategic depth. Just consider that for a moment - invading the largest nation in the world with one of the largest armies and you don't seriously consider the possibility it will go for more than 6 months. Worse, they knew that they really couldn't move as far and as fast as they needed to. The german Army was aware that it lacked the trucks and trains to supply itself properly and that it would need to change all the railway tracks to take German trains. Rather than assigning adequate manpower to the tedious task of changing the gauge they just told themselves they would capture enough Russian trains. Seeing a patten? That sort of self-delusion loses wars.

            Just one more thing, which puts some meat on the bones of what I said earlier. By all means focus on Russian losses. They were massive, spectacular and would have crippled a lesser nation. However, don't overlook German losses. By the start of October 1941 Germany had burned through all its reserves and was several hundred thousand men in deficit. That didn't just happen by accident. The Red Army paid a steep price, but it exacted one as well. There is a reason Germany ran out of steam - it lacked the resources to do the job and its opponent made sure of it.

            From that 1940 perspective invading Russia might have seemed possible, but even overlooking German ignorance and wishful thinking, they knew enough to know their plans were unrealistic and should have thought far enough ahead to plan for a second act. What happened in France led to a serious case of hubris and the bill came due in Russia.

            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

              The US already had sanctions on Japan, so America was very much 'in' and Japan couldn't just carry on. Oil was going ot run out and Japan's path to getting more had the US in its way. Perhaps if Japan had held off occupying French Indochina they could have ridden out US unhappiness at what was happening in China. However, I'm not sure if it was forseeable to Japan that the US would play hardball. From the US POV Europe looked lost to the Nazis, so Japan expanding into Sth East Asia wasn't something it would stand by & watch.

              I agree that Japan was engaging in some major wishful thinking when it came to attacking the US, but I don't think it was so much more than Germany invading Russia that they are in different universes.
              As we know the Japanese plan was to run rampant for 6 months and give the Allies a fait accompli and negotiate a peace. But a sneak attack ruled that out and then Coal Sea, the defense of Port Moresby and Midway marked the end of the beginning. It would be all down hill for Japan after that.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                The thing about 1917 was that Lenin & co initially negotiated with Germany because it was a secondary threat to them. The primary threat was other Russians. Even then, what Germany took provided a fair warning to future Russian governments. Brest-Litovsk didn't just take the traditional few border provinces, it cut deep into territory Russia saw as heartland. One only need read Mein Kampf or listen to countless utterances to see that Adolf wasn't going to stop there, and I'm sure at least some of the comradeswere wel lacquanted with his views. Germany had already occupied every nation it conquered, with the French getting a puppet state in the southern third of their nation. Even without that, early reports of what was going on behind the lines of advance would have given a hint that this wasn't a WW1 style German army.

                Agreed

                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post



                Unfortunately for you the 'interesting technical' stuff is what really matters here.

                This helps explain why germany failed to exact a military victory. Perhaps you could say Germnay actually outperformed relative to their strategic nous and a 1940 objective perspective. But these things are less instructive to how the soviet union managed to hold together. Unless you like the explanation, well they held together (fact) so it was obvious they would hold together.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

                  As we know the Japanese plan was to run rampant for 6 months and give the Allies a fait accompli and negotiate a peace. But a sneak attack ruled that out and then Coal Sea, the defense of Port Moresby and Midway marked the end of the beginning. It would be all down hill for Japan after that.
                  Yep. They needed America out by the end of 1942 or it was all over. If the US goes wobbly and agrees to a negotiated peace with Japan returning US possessions and Japan keeping what it has then Japan wins. Britain isn't going to be in a position to do much for years and China can only play defence.

                  LIke Germany with Russia, Japan seriously underestimated US toughness & willingess to fight. Oops.

                  I read somewhere that Japan built less than 20 aircraft carriers from 1941-45. The US built something like 120. Hard to take on that sort of power in a stand up fight.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                    This helps explain why germany failed to exact a military victory. Perhaps you could say Germnay actually outperformed relative to their strategic nous and a 1940 objective perspective.
                    You have struck the nail squarely on the head. Germany had the most accomplished army in Europe from 1939-1943ish (maybe 42). It had a talented officer corps and land & air doctrines well suited to modern warfare. HOWEVER, even with all that, Germany outperformed against France and against Russia. In both cases their opponents made big mistakes before & during the fight and in both cases Germany was good enough AND lucky enough to have things fall its way. Until Barbarossa finally ground to a predictable halt in November 1941 Germany had not just done as wel las could have been expected, it did so much better.

                    Only a few things have to change from what happened for Germany to struggle a great deal more than it did. For just one example, imagine if Russian forces had been fully on alert when Barbarossa began. If the Red Air Force had just spread its aircraft out more, for example. People like to do the 'how could Germany have won' scenarios, but for mine Germany so outperformed what might be reasonably expected that I have long thought it was the wrong scenario. Run a few where France & Britain or Russia deploy better or make a few changes to what they did and Germany struggles in pretty much every version.

                    But these things are less instructive to how the soviet union managed to hold together. Unless you like the explanation, well they held together (fact) so it was obvious they would hold together.
                    Why Russia held together is actually a good question - focussing on the Russian side of the equation is the way to go for me.

                    Russia had some obvious advantages in strategic depth. It is just such a huge place with such relatively poor infrastructure that any invader is immediately at a disadvantage. Fair to say Russia used this to good effect and it allowed other factors to come into play.

                    One of those was the nature of the Russian state. While the USSR is no one's idea of an efficient system, it had a remarkable ability to mobilize resources, human or otherwise. Of course, the totalitarian nature of the state inclined people to do as the ywere told, but that still requires people above them making the right decision. I have already mentioned manpower, but look at industry. Look at how they moved factories or built new ones. That is something no other power could do. Russia spent the 1930s churning out vast numbers of tanks & aircraft. Those skills existed in large numbers and were a resource that was effectively used.

                    To take one example, Russia lost as many as 20,000 aircraft in 1941 (it is probably half that, but still vast). Germany lost about 2500, but Germany couldn't replace them as fast. By mid-1942 the Luftwaffe was broken. It could still be dangerous, but the gaps in coverage & capability increased. So, from having its airforce virtually destroyed in the first few weeks of the war, Russia was on top within 12 months.

                    Have a look at the Russian military. Much is made of the purges and the back and forth on doctrine, and that is fair enough, but look at the sheer number of officers they trained even before the war. From a standing start no nation had the ability Russia had to find or make officers to lead those conscript armies. It wasn't just general officer training, Russia set up all manner of specialist schools and specialized training. While they certainly learned a lot from the experience of 1941, there was also a ton of institutional knowledge already. That had often not been put to its best use due to purges & reorganization, but as the war progressed it came to the fore.

                    Russia produced a LOT of very talented senior officers. Not just the high profile combat generals who are better known. but some real quality staff officers. Guys like Shaphoshnikov and Vasilevesky did good work. This is an area where Germany has quite rightly been lauded, but Russia should not be underrated.

                    Also remember that most of the purged officers were alive, if not as well as might be hoped, in prison camps. Stalin was an evil mass murdering bastard, but he didn't create the death factories Hitler did. Most people who were arrested lived to come home again, and that included trained officers. I don't know what percentage of them fought in WW2, but I'd bet it was a fair percentage in some capacity.

                    Underlying all of this was the toughness & courage of the Russian people. They bore unimaginable burdens. Perhaps a Germany more prepared to treat them differently might have been able to turn more to their side, but that was pretty much the opposite of what Germany intended to do. Russians worked and fought incredibly hard, something that should not be underestimated.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                      Yep. They needed America out by the end of 1942 or it was all over. If the US goes wobbly and agrees to a negotiated peace with Japan returning US possessions and Japan keeping what it has then Japan wins. Britain isn't going to be in a position to do much for years and China can only play defence.

                      LIke Germany with Russia, Japan seriously underestimated US toughness & willingess to fight. Oops.

                      I read somewhere that Japan built less than 20 aircraft carriers from 1941-45. The US built something like 120. Hard to take on that sort of power in a stand up fight.
                      Actual numbers....158 total with 28 Essex class Fleet carriers, 8 Independence class light carriers & 122 escort carriers (many were for RN/RCN service).

                      Now let's do aircraft...the Japanese produced a little over 60,000 aircraft from 1938-45. The US produced over 89,000 aircraft....in 1944 alone.
                      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                      Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        First some great info and insights so thank you.

                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                        You have struck the nail squarely on the head. Germany had the most accomplished army in Europe from 1939-1943ish (maybe 42). It had a talented officer corps and land & air doctrines well suited to modern warfare. HOWEVER, even with all that, Germany outperformed against France and against Russia. In both cases their opponents made big mistakes before & during the fight and in both cases Germany was good enough AND lucky enough to have things fall its way. Until Barbarossa finally ground to a predictable halt in November 1941 Germany had not just done as wel las could have been expected, it did so much better.

                        Only a few things have to change from what happened for Germany to struggle a great deal more than it did. For just one example, imagine if Russian forces had been fully on alert when Barbarossa began. If the Red Air Force had just spread its aircraft out more, for example. People like to do the 'how could Germany have won' scenarios, but for mine Germany so outperformed what might be reasonably expected that I have long thought it was the wrong scenario. Run a few where France & Britain or Russia deploy better or make a few changes to what they did and Germany struggles in pretty much every version.
                        Yes I think this a balanced/fair account. Reality is nobody is interested in how Germany could and should have lost worse as the outcome remains unchanged. I personally think there are pathways to a axis victory in eurasia but it requires even more good luck and victory against the odds (and no land lease or boots on the ground usa entry on top of it) and they (the axis) had already had more than their fair share of good luck and it still wasnt enough to carry the day.

                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                        Why Russia held together is actually a good question - focussing on the Russian side of the equation is the way to go for me.

                        Russia had some obvious advantages in strategic depth. It is just such a huge place with such relatively poor infrastructure that any invader is immediately at a disadvantage. Fair to say Russia used this to good effect and it allowed other factors to come into play.

                        One of those was the nature of the Russian state. While the USSR is no one's idea of an efficient system, it had a remarkable ability to mobilize resources, human or otherwise. Of course, the totalitarian nature of the state inclined people to do as the ywere told, but that still requires people above them making the right decision. I have already mentioned manpower, but look at industry. Look at how they moved factories or built new ones. That is something no other power could do. Russia spent the 1930s churning out vast numbers of tanks & aircraft. Those skills existed in large numbers and were a resource that was effectively used.
                        I completely agree on the military and geogpraphical reasons. Their industrial production was collosal and land lease relieved key bottlenecks and weak points and really helped leverage the existing potential of the nation. Even the capture of Moscow (unless it initiates a collapse) and a futher push east doesnt militarily end the war with russian industry moved behing the urals. If the soviet union leadership refuses to collapse a counter attack eventually comes even if the war drags on. The only thing that can realistically end it is are many years more conflict or the collapse of the leadership and as you rightly pointed out because hitler waged a war of annihilation he greatly eliminated the potential of settling on gains. Napoleon had the same challenge but it was even less forgivable in his instance as he didnt have the same framing problem as Hitler but just refused to settle at various points because of his own ego.

                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post


                        Have a look at the Russian military. Much is made of the purges and the back and forth on doctrine, and that is fair enough, but look at the sheer number of officers they trained even before the war. From a standing start no nation had the ability Russia had to find or make officers to lead those conscript armies. It wasn't just general officer training, Russia set up all manner of specialist schools and specialized training. While they certainly learned a lot from the experience of 1941, there was also a ton of institutional knowledge already. That had often not been put to its best use due to purges & reorganization, but as the war progressed it came to the fore.

                        Russia produced a LOT of very talented senior officers. Not just the high profile combat generals who are better known. but some real quality staff officers. Guys like Shaphoshnikov and Vasilevesky did good work. This is an area where Germany has quite rightly been lauded, but Russia should not be underrated.

                        Also remember that most of the purged officers were alive, if not as well as might be hoped, in prison camps. Stalin was an evil mass murdering bastard, but he didn't create the death factories Hitler did. Most people who were arrested lived to come home again, and that included trained officers. I don't know what percentage of them fought in WW2, but I'd bet it was a fair percentage in some capacity.

                        Underlying all of this was the toughness & courage of the Russian people. They bore unimaginable burdens. Perhaps a Germany more prepared to treat them differently might have been able to turn more to their side, but that was pretty much the opposite of what Germany intended to do. Russians worked and fought incredibly hard, something that should not be underestimated.
                        Whats interesting is these things help explain how the soviets failed to collapse militarily despite suffering enormous losses that you rightly pointed out other nations could have never sustained. But as these losses mounted in 1941 and 1942 it wasnt obvious or certain they would stop. Most people in the soviet union would not have understood that they had the ability to counter. The news and rumours of retreat and losses would have spread throught the ranks and halls of moscow and beyond. It must have been chaos. yet no collapse, not of the military but of social cohesion and the political leadership. Stalin stayed in power. I think if germany had framed in as dispute over the ukraine etc than perhaps there would have been a coup. Perhaps if the war had dragged on as a stalemate after the initial german victories, stalin may not have survived. As the tide turned so rapidly it worked in his favour. Stalins fear of assassination and his purges and sowing of fear certainly worked in his favour and the self declared purpose of hitler and the subsequent behaviour of the german army(as you pointed out) worked in holding the soviet union together
                        Last edited by tantalus; 02 Oct 20,, 19:23.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

                          Actual numbers....158 total with 28 Essex class Fleet carriers, 8 Independence class light carriers & 122 escort carriers (many were for RN/RCN service).

                          Now let's do aircraft...the Japanese produced a little over 60,000 aircraft from 1938-45. The US produced over 89,000 aircraft....in 1944 alone.
                          Oops, I missed a few.

                          US war production figures are just terrifying. I think the US produced more shipping tonnage in 1943 than Japan produced for the entire war. I don't care how fanatical a warrior you are, you don't beat that if it wants to beat you.

                          On a related topic, apparently the Luftwaffe reached its numerical peak before the battle of France - it didn't even return to those numbers before Barbarossa. They just didn't know what war they were fighitng.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just a general point that this thread reminds me of. I have been saying for a long while - Germany & Japan fundamentally misunderstood the war they were fighting.

                            Japan had no real concept of modern industrial warfare. Sure, it could produce quality kit, but it didn't understand scale & organization. The fact that the Army & Navy basically ran parallel, independent production lines with an industrial base as small as Japans was insanity. Too many senior Japanese leaders fell back on wishful thinking about culture, discipline & martial spirit. They could get away with that for a time, but against the US it was a fantasy world.

                            Germany could and should have grasped the idea of modern industrial warfare, yet it failed to fully embrace it. Ironically the lesson learned from WW1 was that fully mobilizing the population and fully committing the nation was dangerous, so the supposedly ruthless & efficient Nazis baulked at the idea. German industry & society should have been on a complete war footing from the start of the war with Poland, yet it wasn't until the war was effectively lost that this happened.

                            For me the clearest example of German failure is a subject close to the heart of at least one of our posters here - logistics. I have already talked about the magical thinking involved in Barbarossa (and that wasn't the only example), but the problem ran all the way back up the chain. Look at the resources German expended on pointless projects like jet aircraft or on over engineered, unreliable and limited production tanks. The materials & man hours wasted on such designs could & should have gone somewhere more productive. The task of keeping these machines in the field no doubt prematurely aged mechanics & quartermasters throughout the army.

                            Contrast with the US & USSR. Both nations simplified designs & processes in order to keep the maximum number of units available for frontline troops. Given its resources the US could have had squadrons of jet fighters and divisions of heavy tanks, but those were relegated to lower priority status in order to produce more 'good enough' equipment. I love that the US even factored in the dimensions of cargo ships when designing gear. They understood that you planned a war from the factory gate to the battlefield. Every step.

                            The Russians did a cruder but equally effective version of that. They thought about every element of the process and how it would help get equipment to the front. Every hour of production had to have a clear purpose. Soviet design bureaus did great service in this respect. They made simple, robust equipment that did the most with the least. From the biggest tank down to small arms it was always about doing the most with the least. For comparison, Britain arguably didn't produce a quality, balanced tank design until 1945. This from the nation that invented the things. Russia had that nailed by 1940 and complemented those with equally good tank destroyers & SP artillery during the war. As I have already mentioned, Russia did a spectacular job of mobilizing its population. Not just soldiers, but everyone else.
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As the Colonel has said many times before the Japanese Army of 1937-1945 was the finest World War 1 army on the planet. The Navy was better by a long shot but it was screwed on a dependence of foreign oil and looooong supply chain to get it. The greatest failure of Pearl Harbor (besides royally pissing off America) was ignoring the oil tank farms and submarine forces. The Japanese ignored the one target that would rip the guts and heart out of the Empire's naval and merchant forces....the US Pacific Fleet Submarine Force. It did what the Kriegsmarine only hoped to do.

                              Without a doubt Germany had an excellent army...with a 3rd rate logistics backbone. To invade eastward with such crappy logistics was sheer idiocy. Germany was a continental power...period. No effective long range/heavy bomber...only mediums and lights. Fighters too short of legs to be effective long range escorts. A navy which completely wasted it's time and resources on capital ships it didn't need. Germany should never have built anything bigger than a light cruiser. And Germany learned all the wrong lessons from World War 1 regarding mobilization.

                              The US & the USSR took the opposite tact...the US in a less brutal manner than the USSR. The US took a long, hard look at itself and the failure of industry to produce ANYTHING beyond rifles for the Army's use. The Navy did better. The Navy came around to the importance of the carrier...by fits and starts but by 1940 had come around to realize its potential. Effective, tough, survivable carrier capable aircraft were designed and developed. Innovation was the word of the day. The USMC took expeditionary warfare to its zenith developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures they would use and the Army would perfect around the globe. And the USAAF pushed hard to be an intercontinental force with a heavy punch. And all worked together, albeit reluctantly.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X