Jump to content

German losses vs. West and East


coe

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote:

' In answer to your question "How do you get those sleepers and rails forward?" I answer: on the functioning portion of the railroad. Just drive the train to the end of the line and unload it.'

What drivel - if they only laid one track, how could they both lay the track and use it for the purpose it was built for - getting troops and supplies forward.

Or maybe now you will tell me that they laid a dual track, high speed TGV train with club carriages?

If you are going to speculate, at least think through what you are saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue Division,

If Soviet sources are as tainted as you say, why are you citing Khruschev?

Khruschev after all was a politician and not a professional soldier. (Although being the Stalingrad commissar helps.)

So here's a question for you: whose memoirs about Stalingrad do you think give a better picture of the military aspects of the battle, Khruschev's, or Chuikov's?

I have read both memoirs. Have you?

To reiterate: Supply is important, but it does not in and of itself win battles. The Allies on the West Front had factors more trucks and food than the Russians, and the Wehrmacht kicked their butts for a long time.

By Feb-March '45 the Western armies however were tearing east and there was little the Germans could do about it. That was after fighting the Germans actively for about three years.

Same deal on the East Front, except the Russians seemed to have learned faster. By mid '43 the Russians were executing successful mechanised offensives with big operational results. They had learned mobile warfare, and by mid '44 it was the Russians teaching the Germans lessons.

The decisive, I repeat decisive, shift was newfound tactical and operational skill on the part of the Soviets. Not the presence of trucks or cans of spam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

'Khruschev after all was a politician and not a professional soldier. (Although being the Stalingrad commissar helps.)'

Well, if you want to contradict yourself in the same sentence, how can I take you seriously.

Of course, you can make the point that Stalin et al were not professionals as they weren't paid much. They did have all the perks of the job.

As for your statement:

Wrong again. Khruschev took charge of fronts on several occasions in the initial desperate stages of the war. He was basically glory hunting. One of the fronts I think was the offensive in spring 1942 near Kharkov - off the top of my head.

Will you please get your facts straight before posting to this forum.

Quote :

'I have read both memoirs. Have you?'

Bully for you. So you can read? That is 5th grade stuff. Please raise your game.

Quote:

'Supply is important, but it does not in and of itself win battles. '

I did not say that - please do not misquote me or take me out of context.

Any fool knows battles are won by fighting.

Quote:

'The decisive, I repeat decisive, shift was newfound tactical ...'

Oh so now you are changing the terms of your argument by adding the caveat 'decisive' to your argument that trucks weren't important.

Quote:

'Supply is important, but it does not in and of itself win battles.'

Good. It takes a while to get through sometimes, but at last the point has been taken.

And by the way, I never said that infantry, tanks, tactics , strategy et al. aren't important.

You have to realise that in modern warfare, none of these things matter if you cannot keep them supplied.

That is my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

'If Soviet sources are as tainted as you say, why are you citing Khruschev? '

OK, here we go... A short history of the USSR...

Khruschev, as you may or may not know (I reserve judgement) was the leader after Stalin.

He denounced Stalin after he had consolidated his position and did his best to remove parts (not all) of his legacy.

Soon afterwards, he himself was removed by some of Stalin's younger cronies (Brezhnev) who didn't like the way things were going.

Although he did write himself out of blame many times (just like all the other Communist leaders), it is EASY to spot when he is being honest. In this case, his criticism of the backwardness of the USRR (it's inability to feed its own citizens durign the war) is a direct criticism of Stalin (remember what I said about the politics of Stalin's Soviet Union earlier?).

He wrote this because it undermined further the reputation of Stalin. But just because he was undermining Stalin does NOT mean what he wrote was a lie or factually incorrect. We now know from the Soviet Archives being opened up and studied that indeed this was the case. There were indeed terrible famines in Russia during the War.

To be a good researcher you need to be able to weigh evidence, and not just parrot out quotes from books.

I think you need to stop writing replies so quickly and mull things over before posting. It may improve the quality of your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The decisive, I repeat decisive, shift was newfound tactical and operational skill on the part of the Soviets. Not the presence of trucks or cans of spam.

And I repeat, taking operational freedom away from German units and issuing "hold the line" orders did help in Soviet successes, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

'And I repeat, taking operational freedom away from German units and issuing "hold the line" orders did help in Soviet successes, too.'

Absolutely correct.

Giving 'Hold fast' orders to the German Army in 1944 was criminally irresponsible of Hitler. It was an invitation to the Allies and Soviets to surround and cut off those soldiers.

It was even more terrible to consign those German soldiers to the tender mercies of the Soviet government once they had surrendered. Most of the German captives were forced labourers until 1955 or so. A lot didn't make it back.

Remember the Courland pocket? 250,000 soldiers or so... Tunisia ? another 250,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue Division,

1. Since when is disagreeing with some one the same thing as denigration?

2. Which Front(s) was(were) it that Khruschev commanded? That's news to me. I always thought Khruschev started the war as boss of the CPU, and then went on to be political commissar to Chuikov's and then other general officers. Field command, I never heard of.

3. Why do you consider Chuikov's memoirs "5th grade stuff"?

Cheers, this is fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I repeat, taking operational freedom away from German units and issuing "hold the line" orders did help in Soviet successes, too. [/QB]
Leopard 2,

Fair comment, I buy into that at least to some extent. Lack of operational freedom usually sucks.

But not always. Consider Demyansk, the later stages of the 41-42 Winter offensive, and Mars in Nov-Dec 42. Or Vistula line in '44. All are are cases where Hitler said "stand fast" and that brought fine results, the Wehrmacht won and killed tons of Soviets.

It's hard to argue Hitler saying "stand fast" ALWAYS made things worse for the Wehrmacht. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it seems to me.

And if that's the case, then lack of German operational freedom maybe is not quite the war loser that v. Manstein, Mellenthin, and Gudarian make it out to be during the Soviet offensives in late 43 and onwards.

That's one of the reasons I lean towards the Glantz/Soviet school of thinking, which argues the single biggest and most decisive change between the early part of the war on the East Front, and the latter stages, was improved Soviet combat capcity - first and foremost from better operational skill, but also from things like better-trained troops and equipment (like, even, trucks and spam supplies, hehehe!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote :

'Why do you consider Chuikov's memoirs "5th grade stuff"?'

I didn't say that. I was remarking on your statement that -

''I have read both memoirs. Have you?''

where you imply that merely through reading a book you have won the argument. Books must be interpreted critically before you can take them as gospel.

Please read my posts properly and understand them fully before responding incorrectly.

Quote:

'Which Front(s) was(were) it that Khruschev commanded'

You need to look this up - there was a lot of interference from the politburo up to 1943. I don't have a photographic memory to give you a full list of the interference. Please look this up yourself.

During the early stages of the war the Politburo insisted on interfering with operations.

You should know this. The form this interference took was that a member of the Politburo would be delegated by Stalin to go to the front and personally take charge of the situation. The general in charge (if he knew what was good for him) would have to obey. In this way the front was controlled directly by the politburo. Stalin was totally paranoid of treachery.

You can say that the politburo members were basically trying to fight their last war - the Civil War, which was a lot more swashbuckling and informally run.

Krushchev was particaularly fond of sticking his fingers in until he made a real mess of things in the Kharkov offensive of 1942 (was it called Operation Mars?).

You need to read other books than the solidly military books you have quoted. They aren't giving you enough background of the whole situation in the USSR.

I can stress it enough - in the USSR politics were involved in EVERYTHING. If you sneezed in Russia in '30's and up to 1942, it had to be done in a communist fashion. Otehrwise you ended up in the Gulag. You can be sure that nearly everything to do with the Red Army in this period was overseen, interfered with and signed off by Stalin.

Quote :

'Since when is disagreeing with some one the same thing as denigration?'

den·i·grate ( P )

To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.

To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.

By posting things such as this:

'Not the presence of trucks or cans of spam. '

you are implying that I am writing spam - therefore you are disparaging my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote :

'It's hard to argue Hitler saying "stand fast" ALWAYS made things worse for the Wehrmacht. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it seems to me.'

I said in 1944. It is difficult to argue that in 1944 a 'hold fast' really made any big improvement in any situation (*see below). You must be talking about earlier years.

PLEASE read the posts - otherwise we end up repeatign ourselves.

*** With the possible exception of the garrissons left behind in the channel ports of France, Belgium and Holland that denied easy supply to the Allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BD,

By "spam" I meant the U.S.-produced canned meat product called "SPAM," which was sent in zillions of tons to most all allies in the war, including to Russia. It's an invented word based on "processed ham".

I'm pretty sure but not positive the company Hormel came up with it. One of the grogs reading this can correct me.

Meat SPAM came about a half-century before the Internet and was one of the most visible food supplies of the Second World War. I wasn't trying to say your comments are like Internet spam. I was talking about food supplies, and had no intention of insulting you. Promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote :

'I see - sources are not relevant in a discussion about history.

Oh well, learn something new every day.'

I didn't say that.

I will repeat myself again- if you want to quote me as a source, please do not misquote me or taking me out of context.

I really do shudder to think what you are claiming from some of your 'sources', when you are so freely mis-quoting me. I would not be surprised if they were cookery books.

If you are going to 'learn something everyday', then maybe it should be that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

** With the possible exception of the garrissons left behind in the channel ports of France, Belgium and Holland that denied easy supply to the Allies.

Not to wade into the argument antwerp was not opened earlier because of the ground work going into market garden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by blue division:

Quote :

'I see - sources are not relevant in a discussion about history.

Oh well, learn something new every day.'

I didn't say that.

I will repeat myself again- if you want to quote me as a source, please do not misquote me or taking me out of context.

I really do shudder to think what you are claiming from some of your 'sources', when you are so freely mis-quoting me. I would not be surprised if they were cookery books.

If you are going to 'learn something everyday', then maybe it should be that.

Sorry, where except in your fevered imagination am I quoting you?

I am paraphrasing you. Since you still do not give any sources, I stand by my conclusion about your attitude towards proper research.

I have given you all the info you need to check for yourself whether my sources are valid or not. You however believe that a strong opinion based on what you read on the back of a fag packet for all we know is worth as much.

There is nothing more to say about your opinion than that it is tripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, so much fun I have to join again... but on an older matter from page 1 of the thread:

Originally posted by the_enigma:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

An example for bias is the Arnhem bridge. The British 1st para fought against an SS Panzerdivision. Hey, they had no chance against tanks, had they? But if you look at it you'll find that said division was severely mauled and had just given away all of its armor and arty to another division. The paras where held in check mostly by rear echelon troops.Gruß

Joachim

the 2nd ss panzer korp (9th and 10th panzer division) where in the area, along with several more armoured units (battalions etc)

a total it has been stated at 100 tanks and 50+ armoured cars.

link

At the bridge itself, frosts troops where up agaisnt

a panzer company (with tiger tanks), a panzergrenader regiment, SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 9 (recon something, i dont know what it translates as) as well as several battle groups one of them - Kampfgruppe 'Knaust'was made up of a panzer greandier training battalion and the 6th Panzer Replacement Regiment (8 tanks) Knaust later had tigers attached to it.

in the Oosterbeek Sector,

sure there was alot of traning units but there was also armour and arty.

didnt Fallschirmjäger troops also take part? </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever seen a movie about battles lost by the Western Allies?

yes a bridge to far actualy!

in the book of the same name by cornelius ryan, puts the strength of the german armour at the start of market garden at 51 armoured cars and

Gentleman, whenever you see some numbers in a big font: read the small print. The big numbers are impressive. The real facts and numbers are hidden in the small print explaining them.

if the forces you describe were all that was there 30 corps could of passed through themselves even with out the bridges.

the german armour moved up after the start of the operation as noted on page 365 i think of a bridge to far he also estimates german casulties as between 7,500 - 10,000 men so where were they joachim i guess cornelius ryan was wrong. with all this info you should rioght a book montgomery also mentioned 2nd ss panzer in his war diary i guess he was wrong to?

. try and read books before you comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

'I stand by my conclusion about your attitude towards proper research.'

And yet you quote Glantz's work. Haven't read his book on Operation Mars, but from what the synopsis says he blames it all on Zhukov.

This is fundamentally flawed. That particular battle was run to a large extent by Khruschev and one of the other inner circle who's name I can't recall. It was basically another one of the old civil war period warriors who were part of Stalins inner circle. When I say 'run' I mean that they constantly interfered and overrode the staff officers in charge of the conduct of the offensive. This lead to disaster - the offensive being carried on for far too long. Krushchev could not go back to Stalin empty handed - he could have paid with his head for it.

This illustrates perfectly your lack of judgement when weighing up the evidence. You are using a seriously flawed book, and are waving it about as if it is the revealed truth from on high.

You must be more discerning when quoting 'sources'. There are a lot of 'tripe' books out there - you need to be aware of that. Broaden your reading, Andreas. Don't just stick to military books - when dealing with the USSR, you must have a firm grasp of the political situation too. After all, the Red Army was considered to be the peoples army, and the Bolshevik party was the party of the people. Everything was intertwined - you can't seperate the military from the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by blue division:

Quote:

'I stand by my conclusion about your attitude towards proper research.'

And yet you quote Glantz's work. Haven't read his book on Operation Mars, but from what the synopsis says he blames it all on Zhukov.

This is fundamentally flawed. That particular battle was run to a large extent by Khruschev and one of the other inner circle who's name I can't recall. It was basically another one of the old civil war period warriors who were part of Stalins inner circle. When I say 'run' I mean that they constantly interfered and overrode the staff officers in charge of the conduct of the offensive. This lead to disaster - the offensive being carried on for far too long. Krushchev could not go back to Stalin empty handed - he could have paid with his head for it.

This illustrates perfectly your lack of judgement when weighing up the evidence. You are using a seriously flawed book, and are waving it about as if it is the revealed truth from on high.

You must be more discerning when quoting 'sources'. There are a lot of 'tripe' books out there - you need to be aware of that. Broaden your reading, Andreas. Don't just stick to military books - when dealing with the USSR, you must have a firm grasp of the political situation too. After all, the Red Army was considered to be the peoples army, and the Bolshevik party was the party of the people. Everything was intertwined - you can't seperate the military from the party.

More tripe from you.

a) Proper research = do not judge a book by its cover.

B) The Glantz book I cited was simply an edited translation jobby of the Soviet general staff study on the battle, not one of his 'popular' works.

c) Chruchtschow was nowhere near 'Mars', he was too busy taking credit for 'Saturn'. 'Mars' - operations against AG Centre in the Rzhev area. Do you know anything?

You must be quite the expert, if you are unable to tell the difference.

You are not just a troll, you are also clueless. You can not tell the difference between two of the most important operations the Soviets undertook in 1942, yet presume to lecture me on my choice of books.

And you are an idiot if you think you can get away with pretending that you are worth talking to or that your opinion is anything anyone should take note of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...