Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Germany vs Russia a 1 front War.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/27/2012 6:37:36 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6061
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
Based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Krivosheyev

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flib.ru%2FMEMUARY%2F1939-1945%2FKRIWOSHEEW%2Fpoteri.txt

Plus data from Wallac here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3216985&mpage=2



The thing that gets me the most is how poeple still cling to the dated fact that Russia could have some how soloed Germany when the numbers clearly show, Germany was winning the war of attrition hands down.

Russian total population 170 million
Germany 86 million

A ratio of 2 to 1 basicly. If you want to throw in the minor axis allies it just makes the case even worse for Russia. I will leave them out for a best case for Russian.

Combat losses from 1941-1944 was a 3.5 to 1 ratio and thats the very best case with minor axis allies included. Again a best case for Russia.

I have seen others based on new data who put it at closer to 4.5 to 1, but I will give it the best case. No minor axis allie population, but losses added in.

Russia could not win a war of attrition lossing at a rate of 3.5 to 1 when the population differance is 2 to 1.

The only reason Russia survived was because:

1. Early 1942 Russia was able to move 500,000 men to Moscow area from the Far East. Becuase of USA fighting Japan.
2. 363,000 trucks allies gave to Russia/ 12,500 tanks/7,000 HT. Many of these arrived in the 2nd half of 42, just in time.
3. Germany had close to 1,000,000 men in Western Europe in 1941 and even more (close to 2 million) tied up in Western and Southern Europe in 1942.

Germany vs Russia ( 1 front ) only and it would have been over in 1941 or at the latest 1942. With the 1941-1942 ratio clearly being at least 4.5 to 1 there is no way Russia could have survived vs all of Germans army and airforse on the eastern front.

Put another 20-30 divisions in Russia in 1941 and Moscow/Leningrad would have easly fallen and then add in even more German divisions in 1942 and its over. Staying in control of this huge area for a long time would be another interesting debate in of itself.

I am not down playing the very brave russian soldiers. Who had almost no trianing and who were fighting for leaders using dated WW1 tactics.

I also know Germany lost the war, thats for the Red Fanboys.

But based 100% on the math/ historical best cases for russia and not political correctness or feelings, Germany could have soloed Russia in a 1 front war.

Hitler failed to follow his on advise and got Gemany into another 2 (3) front war.

Be interesting to see how 2by3 over comes this when they start testing The War in Europe.

Because if they don't forse Germany into a war early with the west Germany could solo Russia in 1941.

Germany kicked butt because of tactical air support from 1939 to 1942. The fact that in most cases Germany was out numbered and out gunned can't be over looked.

The old 3 to 1 odds to beable to attack, simply did not apply to Germany until they lost control of the air.

A 1 to 1 ratio in most cases vs British/French or Russian units was more then enough for an easy win.






_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-uyENm3T-0
Post #: 1
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/27/2012 7:39:04 PM   
Gunnulf

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline
Coulda, shoulda, woulda of course. You can factor in plenty of other what if's such as a German industrial production unhindered by the Royal Navy blockade, and bombing of the Reich. While this bombing was not so effective in 41/42 obviously by 43 it was starting to divert resources from the east too. Of course units tied down in the west could have been released for the East but you miss these other considerations too.

Without these the offensive might have been successful. However what would it have taken to achive this strategic freedom? No war with Britain/France in the first place? Victory over UK in 40? Or sealion in 41? This would have delayed Barbarossa until 42. With more T34s (and delays in German armour development from not having faced them and learnt the necessary lessons etc...) and one more year for the Red army to rebuild and train from the command hole of the purges. Would Barbarossa have faced much stiffer opposition in 42? So many variables.

However re. Attrition. You can suggest that it was working more against the Soviets but there is also the consideration of willpower and the willingness to accept losses. This was undoubtedly an advantage. It might have led to a pyrrhic victory but by the time of D-Day the Axis were already being pushed back to Lvov and the Romanian border in the south, and then broke at Bagration just after D-Day. The German army was generally better trained & equipt, but it wasn't enough. Numbers and statistics over the whole campaign are all very interesting, but its the ability to concentrate power locally that wins battles. And thats a sum of logistics, leadership & training. But mostly logistics. And thats largely what failed Germany in the end.

As always with 'what ifs' there are numerous other butterfly effects to be considered. If you just want to strip out the divisions deployed in the west and add them into the mix, then sure, why not. Germany romps home. But they didn't.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 2
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/27/2012 8:07:37 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4418
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
LOL

You're a legend and my hero, Pelton!




Anywayssssss... I would have avoided this part:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/whateverwhatever


If you want to win your case by all means, never ever use the Wikipedia to back up your point...!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/27/2012 8:08:34 PM >


_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 3
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/27/2012 9:18:34 PM   
Dark_Star


Posts: 49
Joined: 1/21/2012
From: Flatland
Status: offline
This touches on the problem with all good games of WWII. The players can know too much. The designer is faced with the problem;
1. make is play balance for those know the history and
2. those who do not know the history
It is my believe these are mutually exclusive and do not envy the designer or developers job.
Example: British radar stations, Battle of Britain. Those German players knowing the history will bomb the stations back to the stone age no matter the cost.
so what does this have to do about the 1 front war. If Axis goes with invading England 1941 delaying Invading USSR. If successful the possibles are so many;
from basing Air and Subs from west cost of England ( indestructible Aircraft Carrier) to very limited garrisoning (remembering a big minor of English did not want to fight Germany, this before news of how big the Nazi was got out) and adding British production to Greater Germany production (oh boy!)
The down side is that USSR by 1941 had learned about large mechanize & shooting officers and were taking serious steps to correct its mistakes.
I doubt the USSR would be the equal of the German forces in 1942, but they would not have been the push overs of 1941.
So, it would seem the best chance of defeating USSR is still the 1941 invasion.
Maybe for a more possible option, is for the Germany to go to a war economy in 1940-1942 instead of 1943 and still attack USSR in 1941


< Message edited by Dark_Star -- 11/27/2012 9:20:22 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 4
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/27/2012 11:39:07 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Yeah, more Russians died than Germans.

Up until Soviet tanks rolled into Berlin.

The Luftwaffe produced more aces with 50+ kills than the rest of the world combined.

Yet they couldn't save Germany from being bombed.

The U-Boats sank far more tonnage than they lost.

Yet they couldn't stop the convoys.

Rudel destroyed what, 5-700 tanks? Didn't matter, the Soviets had more.

(in reply to Dark_Star)
Post #: 5
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/27/2012 11:44:23 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

Coulda, shoulda, woulda of course. You can factor in plenty of other what if's such as a German industrial production unhindered by the Royal Navy blockade, and bombing of the Reich. While this bombing was not so effective in 41/42 obviously by 43 it was starting to divert resources from the east too. Of course units tied down in the west could have been released for the East but you miss these other considerations too.



And this too: http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

For example, in FY 1942, Germany produced 30 million tons of steel - but only 8 million tons of that was directed towards military production efforts (airplanes, guns, munitions, supplies, tanks, etc.).




(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 6
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 1:19:40 AM   
el hefe


Posts: 3205
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: online
The German performance in WW2 can be nicely summed up with a vignette that was given by a German POW to a young US Soldier named David Hackworth.

Hackworth asked the POW if the Germans were so tough, how did they lose the war? The German responded with something like this:

I was a battery commander of six 88mm guns on a hilltop in France. The Americans would send tanks down this road to our front and we would knock out every tank that they sent. One day we ran out of ammunition. The Americans never ran out of tanks.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

Coulda, shoulda, woulda of course. You can factor in plenty of other what if's such as a German industrial production unhindered by the Royal Navy blockade, and bombing of the Reich. While this bombing was not so effective in 41/42 obviously by 43 it was starting to divert resources from the east too. Of course units tied down in the west could have been released for the East but you miss these other considerations too.



And this too: http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

For example, in FY 1942, Germany produced 30 million tons of steel - but only 8 million tons of that was directed towards military production efforts (airplanes, guns, munitions, supplies, tanks, etc.).







_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 7
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 1:29:43 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6061
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
Historically speaking mobilizing German population in 1939 and not 1943 would be a great start.

Europe was Germanys war to lose and they did, not because of the allies but because:

1. Hitler did not put industry in war mode until late 43
2. Hitler demoblized after France
3. Hitler did not mobilze manpower until late 43.

If they had done these things in say 1941 to say nothing of 1939 it would be a different world, but its not.

Germany held all the cards, but simply did not play them or they played them 2 years to late. Hitlers bad.


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-uyENm3T-0

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 8
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 1:31:09 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6061
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

LOL

You're a legend and my hero, Pelton!




Anywayssssss... I would have avoided this part:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/whateverwhatever


If you want to win your case by all means, never ever use the Wikipedia to back up your point...!


Allot of info is from Walloc who is fun to debate stuff with unlike most of the poeple who are stuck in the Stalin worship mode.

The link is from a Russian historian you good old Stalin dog.

So are you saying that data provided by a russian historian is not good enough, because its true?

There is a link to his book also.

Have fun reading it.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/28/2012 2:01:20 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-uyENm3T-0

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 9
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 1:47:32 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6061
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Yeah, more Russians died than Germans.

Up until Soviet tanks rolled into Berlin.

The Luftwaffe produced more aces with 50+ kills than the rest of the world combined.

Yet they couldn't save Germany from being bombed.

The U-Boats sank far more tonnage than they lost.

Yet they couldn't stop the convoys.

Rudel destroyed what, 5-700 tanks? Didn't matter, the Soviets had more.


Those are statements that dont support anything other then your whining.

The West saved Russia.

Germany based on the historical data was bleeding Russia dry.

2 to 1 in population
3.5 to 1 in loses.

Kinda simple to figure that out.

Unless you think 1+1=5



< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/28/2012 1:48:08 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-uyENm3T-0

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 10
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 2:30:16 AM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 334
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
Pelton -

Your analysis of a one front war ignores key drivers. For example, since your assumption is that Germany didn't invade France and the Benelux countries, it would have:

- Eliminated nearly 30% of German economic growth in 41, 40% in 42 and 43 (Milward did an excellent analysis of the impact of the western occupied countries on the German mobilization efforts his 1960 work - I would recommend you read it)

- Like it or not, these conquest more than over compensated for the lack of earlier German war mobilization. And France provided Germany the small engine capability it needed in 1940-43 that DID NOT EXIST in Germany nor could it have existed in Germany until 1944 - it was a priority to expand this capability but it took this long to build these factories from scratch.

- Taken nearly 2 million SKILLED workers out of the German labor force that was relocated to Germany from France and Benelux countries in 41 and 42

- It would have taken at least 50 to 60 divisions to stay on the Western front if the French and Benelux forces even partially mobilized. German interwar and prewar plans clearly lay this out - so no 300,000 plus men would be freed up

- Japan NEVER had any intention of attacking Russia whether it was at war with the United States or not. Imperial War Council notes clearly show that the Japanese learned thier lessons in the late 30s and were far more interested in either a) attacking the British, b) finishing off and taking over Chiana. So those 500,000 Russians were going to arrive anyway. This is the German fanasty scenario.

- The German logistics system remained one of the weakest points in its military structure. There is no reason to believe that the Germans would improve this system. And without the additional rail capacity that the French and Benelux countries provided, the strain would be even worse.

- Lend lease, which we can discuss in great detail if you really want to do it, including month and amount of supplies delievered, didn't really help the Russians until after 42 - it simply wasn't there in large enough numbers to make a difference EXCEPT for explosives/ammo which was important.

- Even the German prewar invasion gaming showed that the likelyhood of Germany succeeding wasn't possible.

- Reality is that the Soviets did so much WORSE than anyone expected because of Stalin (or the SHC) bad decisions, it allowed the Germans to succeed more than they really expected. And the Germans kept pushing. And the Germans misjudged how much the SHC could mobilize troops, tanks, and aircraft. In some ways, the Soviets succeeded in spite of themselves.

- By the begining of 43, the game was over. At that point, it was only a question of time with the Germans losing. Strategically, they had blown it. And without the additional muscle from the French/Benelux countries, the end would have come much earlier. The German resources would have just run out.

Like it or not, Germany's best strategic choice IF it could defeat France quickly and capture the industry intact, was to take the French and Benelux countries out first. This would give it the economic muscle to take on the Soviet Union AND the security to apply as much force as possible.

While I agree that Germany made a number of strategic mistakes - and demobilization and not moving to a full war economy AFTER winning in the West was a big one, invading Russia represented a big gamble.

The single biggest mistake that Germany made was declaring war on the United States - not doing that would have forced the US to take a radically different path. I still think the US would have entered the war, but it would have taken longer and forced a much different path than the one the US was allowed to take.

At the heart of it, the loss ratios are a result of this production muscle. Without it, the ratios would be a lot worse.

The issue is that by the time the Germans could actually have geared up for full war, it was too late.

And Germany, as a note, couldn't really go to full mobilization much earlier than it did. To do so would have required it to "repudiate" the Nazi philosphy of keeping the women hope and not at work. Once the Allies brought the war to Germany via the bombing campaign, that didn't matter - by then, the home AAA was manned by women and teen agers, and women could leave home and work as the nation needed them.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 11
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 2:57:02 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4418
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
And Germany, as a note, couldn't really go to full mobilization much earlier than it did. To do so would have required it to "repudiate" the Nazi philosphy of keeping the women hope and not at work. Once the Allies brought the war to Germany via the bombing campaign, that didn't matter - by then, the home AAA was manned by women and teen agers, and women could leave home and work as the nation needed them.


Exactly. Pelton, you love raw numbers but you have to learn to read behind them...

Germany 1/2 Soviet population is not telling anything... The Soviet (and American and British) women were working whilst the men were fighting.

Ever heard about the KKK? And no, I am not talking about the guys with the blankets

"Kinder Kirche Küche" aka kids, kitchen, church... Yes, that was the Nazi programme for the German women.

Their enemies were not fools, and obviously the massive mobilization of women in the USSR and US released a LOT of men who could actually be sent to the front. Their mothers, sisters, wives were producing the ammo they needed to smash the enemy

And no matter what you may think, war is not a mathematical affair.

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 12
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:23:52 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6061
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
And Germany, as a note, couldn't really go to full mobilization much earlier than it did. To do so would have required it to "repudiate" the Nazi philosphy of keeping the women hope and not at work. Once the Allies brought the war to Germany via the bombing campaign, that didn't matter - by then, the home AAA was manned by women and teen agers, and women could leave home and work as the nation needed them.


Exactly. Pelton, you love raw numbers but you have to learn to read behind them...

Germany 1/2 Soviet population is not telling anything... The Soviet (and American and British) women were working whilst the men were fighting.

Ever heard about the KKK? And no, I am not talking about the guys with the blankets

"Kinder Kirche Küche" aka kids, kitchen, church... Yes, that was the Nazi programme for the German women.

Their enemies were not fools, and obviously the massive mobilization of women in the USSR and US released a LOT of men who could actually be sent to the front. Their mothers, sisters, wives were producing the ammo they needed to smash the enemy

And no matter what you may think, war is not a mathematical affair.


I have stated that more then once.

a 3 to 1 ratio attacking was not required by the Germans, only 1 to 1 or even 1 to 2 odds.

Its not about math, as the Germans showed.

They could be out numbered and not have as good equipment as the poeple they were attacking and still win.

Why they were getting a 5 to 1 ratio in 1941.

Better trianing and tactics can and did over come heavy odds in many cases.

It took the world to over come 86 million poeple and they had a peace time econemy/manpower until late 1943.

Yes your 100% right it was not all about numbers.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-uyENm3T-0

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 13
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:39:52 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
botched post.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 11/28/2012 3:48:15 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 14
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:40:51 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

[


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
And Germany, as a note, couldn't really go to full mobilization much earlier than it did. To do so would have required it to "repudiate" the Nazi philosphy of keeping the women hope and not at work. Once the Allies brought the war to Germany via the bombing campaign, that didn't matter - by then, the home AAA was manned by women and teen agers, and women could leave home and work as the nation needed them.


Exactly. Pelton, you love raw numbers but you have to learn to read behind them...

Germany 1/2 Soviet population is not telling anything... The Soviet (and American and British) women were working whilst the men were fighting.

Ever heard about the KKK? And no, I am not talking about the guys with the blankets

"Kinder Kirche Küche" aka kids, kitchen, church... Yes, that was the Nazi programme for the German women.

Their enemies were not fools, and obviously the massive mobilization of women in the USSR and US released a LOT of men who could actually be sent to the front. Their mothers, sisters, wives were producing the ammo they needed to smash the enemy

And no matter what you may think, war is not a mathematical affair.



From my link above. And a site labeled feldgrau, well, it'd be hard to show it's pro Soviet :)

In terms of human resources, Germany should have increased the hours of a workday to way beyond a regular “9-5” day early in the war. Women were not considered as a serious alternative work force until late in the war either. In 1939, German industries utilized 2.62 million women. In July of 1944, German industries still only utilized 2.67 million women. This average was maintained from 1939 to 1944.

And I love this part:

The bottom line - the ultimate question is one of simple economics and opportunity costs. How does a nation allocate its existing economic resources? What could one do instead if one changed one’s econimic priorities? One could produce a mighty slick looking and most effective Jagdpanther V with all the bells and whistles or one could opt to produce five shoddy looking, but most functional and reliable T-34’s instead. And so the equation goes. The Soviets opted for the latter scenario and they essentially defeated Germany in May of 1945. The Soviet Union produced great quantities of very basic weapons systems to counter the exceptional skills of the German military command. The Germans elected to go for the Jagdpanther V type scenario - they thus lost the economic battle of the war, and thus the war itself.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 15
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:43:02 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Sums it up nicely.



quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

The German performance in WW2 can be nicely summed up with a vignette that was given by a German POW to a young US Soldier named David Hackworth.

Hackworth asked the POW if the Germans were so tough, how did they lose the war? The German responded with something like this:

I was a battery commander of six 88mm guns on a hilltop in France. The Americans would send tanks down this road to our front and we would knock out every tank that they sent. One day we ran out of ammunition. The Americans never ran out of tanks.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

Coulda, shoulda, woulda of course. You can factor in plenty of other what if's such as a German industrial production unhindered by the Royal Navy blockade, and bombing of the Reich. While this bombing was not so effective in 41/42 obviously by 43 it was starting to divert resources from the east too. Of course units tied down in the west could have been released for the East but you miss these other considerations too.



And this too: http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

For example, in FY 1942, Germany produced 30 million tons of steel - but only 8 million tons of that was directed towards military production efforts (airplanes, guns, munitions, supplies, tanks, etc.).








(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 16
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:45:55 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4418
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
This reminds me of Hannibal. Almost completely cut off from his supplies he fought during 17 years in Italy with his same Africans, Spaniards and French...

Always outnumbered, he did not need a 1:1 or 2:1 to regularly defeat his enemies.

In the end Scipio got to Africa, defeated Hannibal and the game was over...

And?

No matter the path you choose, all roads lead to Rome...

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 17
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:57:19 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

This reminds me of Hannibal. Almost completely cut off from his supplies he fought during 17 years in Italy with his same Africans, Spaniards and French...

Always outnumbered, he did not need a 1:1 or 2:1 to regularly defeat his enemies.



And he lacked the capability to take Rome.

And Rome just didn't give up. Lose an army, they'd build another one.

Ya know, when War in Europe comes out, he can try his one front thingie. Doubt that the Western Allies would just sit there though.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 18
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 4:41:34 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2162
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I don't know that having more troops at the front late in 1941 would have helped the situation at all and may have made things worse to a point. More is not necessarily better when you have to support it with logistics. German logistics in Russia was bad and to try to support another 20-30 divisions would have brought about its own nightmares.

I think it was General von Thoma who was sent to Italy to study the Africa issue early. His study and recommendation was to send a 4 division panzer corps. His comments were that he didn't think less would get the job done and didn't see how more than that could have been supported. His recommendation was to also remove most of the Italian forces because what was needed was fewer high quality troops vs more low quality troops. A excellent solder drinks and eats the same as solders who are not very good at all. German equipment was also far better than what the Italians had as well. Of course, this didn't come about because the Italians wanted the glory of the win.

On paper, the British forces were horribly outnumbered manpower wise, but trying to support that huge mass of men was the undoing of the Italian troops.

The Germans did pick up a lot of resources in the west that made their economy stronger and also provided them the means to invade Russia. (Germany captured huge stockpiles of gas in France and without it, I don't think they would have had the fuel to do as much as they did in the opening campaign in Russia). The Germans also captured a lot of trucks as well from the Western Countries, all of which were used in the East.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 19
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 4:45:00 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3061
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Too add too Turtlefang. Like the german "commandered" more trains and rolling stock from the rest of europe than it actually produced during the entire war. With those the supply situasion in russian would have been even bleeker and by a great margin. In early 44 nearly 1 mio millage of french rolling stock and 15000 trains are transfered to the eastern front or as the supply system faced total break down. This ofc didnt help the german army in france come June-Aug 44.

Knd regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 20
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 6:40:43 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 803
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
I wonder how the casualty rate looks in when you factor in the German POWs in 1945. That jumped the casualty count by about 5 million in 2nd quarter of '45. See, Russia can afford 4.5 to 1 casualty ratio if that means defeating the enemy and by doing so turning the casualty ratio into 2 to 1 or 1 to 1.

Actually, the casualty ratio doesn't matter one bit as long as you win. Pelton's scenario is some kind of extended attritional math game, which is fine by itself, but it's an attritional math game and not war.

< Message edited by Karri -- 11/28/2012 6:48:15 AM >

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 21
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 8:09:56 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/ELM-War_Deaths.pdf

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 22
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 8:36:49 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22624
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The West saved Russia.

Germany based on the historical data was bleeding Russia dry.


The Germany lost the WWII the very second it attacked Soviet Union (in the long run the Germany simply couldn't defeat Soviet Union and Soviet Union was not France - it was huge country geographically wise with large and determined population and enormous industry capability)!

Similarly the Japan lost the WWII the very second they attacked the USA!


If someone thinks differently please list any (and I really mean any) serious historic book by serious historian which claims otherwise...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 23
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 9:02:28 AM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
If you take away all the help the Allies gave to the Soviets the Soviets lose. At the least, it is a much longer war. The Soviets best friend, without exception, was Hitler himself. If someone other than Hitler ran the war in the East, like possibly a general, it is a much different war.
Looking back it seems so simple, I don't think it is so easy. With the Allies supplying the Soviets with much needed supplies, yes Germany loses the war, but it wasn't over when they attacked the Soviets it was over during the blizzard.


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 24
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 9:25:34 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22624
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

If you take away all the help the Allies gave to the Soviets the Soviets lose. At the least, it is a much longer war. The Soviets best friend, without exception, was Hitler himself. If someone other than Hitler ran the war in the East, like possibly a general, it is a much different war.
Looking back it seems so simple, I don't think it is so easy. With the Allies supplying the Soviets with much needed supplies, yes Germany loses the war, but it wasn't over when they attacked the Soviets it was over during the blizzard.


Like I posted earlier - the Soviet Union was not France - it simply couldn't be conquered by the Blitzkrieg the Germans were capable of doing in 1940/1941!

Whatever strategy Germany might have used (i.e. other than what they used in actual Barbarossa) the end outcome would be the same - the Soviet Union was simply too big in all aspects to be won that way!

Also if anyone thinks that losing Moscow and/or Leningrad would make Soviet Union capitulate is grossly miscalculating - this would simply never happen and war would continue even with those losses!!!

Just look at the history of Russia / Soviet Union...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 25
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 10:03:30 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1974
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
I don't go with this considered possibility that Germany could have moved it's whole army and air force to fight in the East; wouldn't that leave other areas absolutely open to invasion?

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 26
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 2:54:53 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 975
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
A two front war was inevitable all the while Britain was undefeated.Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
Germany's best hope for a win was probably to knock Britain out of the war in 1940.This may have been possible with better long term planning and quite a bit of luck.I've no doubt Spain would have joined the Axis at that point as well so North Africa and the Middle East would have been Axis controlled.At that point a 1941 or 42 invasion of the Soviet Union looks like a much safer bet.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 11/28/2012 3:00:10 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 27
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 3:59:10 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Wow, what a discussion. I tend to agree that the US involvement as well as the survival of GB were key factors to the loss of the war. Lend-and-lease offered some key goods like train engines, trucks, ammo and fuel, which possibly had a major impact, but aside from that it probably wasn't making a difference more than can be measured in a few weeks time gain. Lend-and-lease wasn't maxed and static either, just to note that -- it probably would have upped dramatically if the Germans had succeeded better as would be the case in most recent AARs. Without the US, Germany probably still would have lost to Russia, but it would have been a longer and closer thing -- leaving Germany weak and wide open to exploit in any case.

There remained a need to keep several divisions in the Netherlands, France, later Yugoslavia, and Greece, and North Africa, that's probably trivial. Even if Hitler decided to immediately occupy also Vichy France, and despite the almost certain knowledge that GB also could not mount an invasion in France, there was acute need to keep security elements in the occupied countries. These divisions, some 20-30 on average I believe, could probably not be dispatched -- some were security divs, esp. after 42, with poorer man corps and training, some were switched out units refitting from horrors and losses elsewhere, and many were actually Wehrmacht training units such as Panzer Lehr Div. I can't see these make a major impact elsewhere even at the risk of loosing control of the occupied territories and closing important "training cycles". Hmmmh.

Whether Germany was winning a war of attrition? Well, the question about the total casualties, pows, was a good one. Also all the soft factors, from loosing the war at home, to bombing of industry and infrastructure, to the actual unit morale. After 4.5 years (44), and with 2 years of partly disastrous reverses under the belly, and 4.5 years that in particular depleted the ranks of veteran soldiers and officers training pre war and experienced in the successful early campaigns, the Wehrmacht certainly was the same one that started Barbarossa (while the Red Army vastly improved in all sectors -- fine, it hardly could get worse...). Not for now reason it was no longer able to react flexible and quick to the Russian blows. One year earlier, I would guess that Bagration would not have met the success it did even if the Red Army had been the 44 one. Numbers alone don't quite do justice to this.

I think also the other points brought up above about the ideology and politics itself limiting German potential ringe quite true. German thinking, superiority believes in themselves lead to disaster. By the time the Germans realized that they aren't supernaturals, it was to late to really gear up the whole war machine. I remember reading some discussion about the possibility to bring up the German industry to speed prior to 43, and I believe to recall that some analysts denied this to have been possible. I don't recall the reasons well, though. I think it had to do with time-consuming infrastructure issues, and resource delivery. One thing that led to such a gain in weapons and vehicle output was simplifications in models (like for e.g. minimizing usage of rarer/expensive metals like Ni or Cu, or the use of natural rubber at the expense performance and sometimes longlevity/reliability -- esp. the later IV and V series come to mind). Another factor often quoted was switching to modular production systems with several factories producing identical components that were only assembled in the end. That in particular worked against the aerial campaign. I guess both developments probably were not in the minds of the Germans in summer 40 or 41, nor even imagined to be needed at any point as the Russians were expected to falter within 2 months...

So I do not quite see the Germans win on the attritional side if you look at materials (too complex, like said above, compared to Russian and Allied numbers of inferior but just good enough equipment), and the fighting-capable and still willing men power. Russians quickly faced a different mindset, for sure, and were fighting for their lifes, whereas for Germans the was a distance and abstract thing until Allied bombing started in earnest in 43/44, and then homeland morale declined, blending into troop morale.

On thing I find strange though. I never heard about this "demobolization" after France, and before Barbarossa. There is mention about a wave of extended leaves in that period in the OKH reports and diaries, but no mention of any demobilization or true stand down of large formations. Two reasons are discussed in the staff meetings, but brought up by Hitler, and both appear for two reasons: one was that the men couldn't be kept for years from their families knowing that he had the planning of Barbarossa started in earnest sometime after August 40, when it became clear that Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe were in no position to guarantee the success of Sea Lion, and a loss was politically both unthinkable and needed not to be risked as Russia was only going to be a few month interlude until eyes could turn West again. The other was the many of the men came from industries considered of war critical importance, and Hitler and his Reichsminister wanted them back to work over the winter period until spring brought sudden developments in Albania and Africa. But of a true and intentional demobilization I never heard or read. Where does that come from???

PS. Apollo -- nice story, my grandfather used to tell similar experiences from France, where he fought in 44. Must have been an exercise in futility.

< Message edited by janh -- 11/28/2012 4:00:45 PM >

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 28
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 4:07:00 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 334
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
That was my point earlier when I stated that Germany would have to leave 300,000 men to defend the west even if not at war. The French simply weren't going to NOT mobilize while the German's mobilized - that would be an invitation to invasion.

And Pelton, please explain to me exactly how the German's could engineer a one front war with the Soviets? Since the war started over the invasion of Poland - and Britain and France defending Poland - it really wasn't Germany's decision to go war after Britain and France made the decision to defend Poland.

If Germany didn't invade Poland, are you assuming that it would then invade the USSR from Germany, through Poland? or that the Soviet's invaded Poland on their own? or that Britain and France backed down (and if so, why do you think that would have happened?).

And without Germany's western wins, do you really think that the German's could have kept the Romanians and Hungarians in check? They wouldn't have had the military prestige (read fear) that they did have. And if they didn't occupy Poland, they wouldn't have had the closeness either.

As it was, the takeover of Poland gave the Germans the economic means to take control of the Romanian oil fields from other business interest. The Germans took the Polish military arms, used them to arm the Romanian military, and traded them for control of the oil and oil imports. Without it, the German's literally couldn't have afforded the Romanian oil. Ego, no Polish invasion, no Romanian oil, no possible invasion of Russia as the Germans couldn't fuel their military.

Just as a note, I'm not convinced the Germans couldn't have defeated the Soviets as it was in WW2. The dogged and determined Soviet defense was depended on Stalin and Stalin's will to keep fighting regardless of cost. If Germany could have pushed the victory total over the top - by potentially capturing Leningrad or, even worse, Moscow, I think there is a possibility that Stalin could have been "reeducated" (killed) by a new regime. And that new regime might have been willing to make peace to consolidate power. It would be a long shot, but it was the only shot that I think the Germans had. And once they blew it in 41, it was over.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 29
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 6:10:17 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2257
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

If you take away all the help the Allies gave to the Soviets the Soviets lose. At the least, it is a much longer war. The Soviets best friend, without exception, was Hitler himself. If someone other than Hitler ran the war in the East, like possibly a general, it is a much different war.
Looking back it seems so simple, I don't think it is so easy. With the Allies supplying the Soviets with much needed supplies, yes Germany loses the war, but it wasn't over when they attacked the Soviets it was over during the blizzard.


Like I posted earlier - the Soviet Union was not France - it simply couldn't be conquered by the Blitzkrieg the Germans were capable of doing in 1940/1941!

Whatever strategy Germany might have used (i.e. other than what they used in actual Barbarossa) the end outcome would be the same - the Soviet Union was simply too big in all aspects to be won that way!

Also if anyone thinks that losing Moscow and/or Leningrad would make Soviet Union capitulate is grossly miscalculating - this would simply never happen and war would continue even with those losses!!!

Just look at the history of Russia / Soviet Union...


Leo "Apollo11"


I *think* the following line is in Clark's "Barbarossa", "This is not the month of May and we are not fighting in France." one German general said on seeing Gorky as an objective @Nov 41.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.129