Matrix Games Forums

Space 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!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 6:24:42 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2236
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"


In the book Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front:

Lend Lease did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between victory and defeat in 1941-42.

Without it, the Soviet economy would of been even more heavily burdened by the war effort.

Soviet offensives would of stalled earlier, outrunning their logistlcal tails in a matter of days, thus allowing German commanders to escape some encirclements. (Though Hitler being Hitler, I find that doubtful.) The Sovs would of been forced to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks to go the same distance.

Left to their own devices, the Sovs might of taken 12-18 months longer to defeat the Wehrmacht. The ultimate result would of probably been the same, except Soviet soldiers could have waded at the French Atlantic beaches.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 31
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 6:36:57 PM   
vandev

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2011
Status: offline
Always interesting to discuss WW 2. What did Germany bring to the table about why it thought it could win a war. The answer is really the same for both World Wars, Germany believed it simply had better military efficiency then its opponents, and that they, therefore, would win battles and the war. The German confidence in the general staff system combined with their objective approach to giving orders, essentially meant that they trusted the officer on the battlefield to make the tactical decisions necessary to accomplish the given objective. This trust in the officer (at every level) had very powerfull tacitical effects. German units did in fact perform better in both wars, often much better. In WW 2, this flexibility in command was combined with new weapons to greatly increase the amount of firepower that could be intelligently brought to bear. The mg-42, panzerfaust, 88 and dive bomber were real force multipliers that won alot of early battles. Notice how I did not mention tanks. The early model german tanks were really just expliotation vehicles that fit in very well with their flexible command style. What they discovered is that the modern battlefield favored killing power, range and armor. This needed a long barrelled 75 at a minimum (Panther gun) and strong frontal armor. Only the Tiger and Panther (and related tank destroyers) provided these and they came late and lacked numbers. This superior officer corp mastered combined arms warfare and this willingness to delegate to captains and majors created the deadly ad-hoc kampgruffe that caused such devastation to the allied armies.

Fortunately for the world (my bias) Germany fundamentally lacked things. Fuel, shells, trucks, tanks, artillery, planes, ammunition, steel, rubber, etc, etc. 6,000 panthers built vs 30,000 t-34's and 60,000 shermans. You can go on and on, the Allies simply had to much. German tacitical and operational brilliance was simply not brilliant enough to overcome their deficit in things.

However, Germany vs Soviet Union........Germany wins as lend lease was the margin for soviet survival. That said their was zero chance of a one front war. France and Britain would have attacked Germany once it was deeply engaged in Russia and vice versa. Germany needed two quick knock out blows but got only one and one half.

Vandev

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 32
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/28/2012 8:52:22 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2236
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vandev

However, Germany vs Soviet Union........Germany wins as lend lease was the margin for soviet survival.

Vandev


Since LL made no little to no difference before 1943, why didn't Germany win then?

(in reply to vandev)
Post #: 33
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/29/2012 12:48:33 AM   
Gunnulf

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline
Because on the strategic defense LL wasn't the critical factor. However come '43 onwards LL was much more relevant to supporting/enabling offensive operations.

Overall with the benefit of hindsight its difficult not to look at Barbarossa's objectives as the height of arrogance. Memel to Gorky is 1600km at best. Well over twice the distance of say Luxembourg to Cherbourg, over worse terrain. Meanwhile the British Empire remains undefeated in your rear. Hitler & high command were undoubtedly drunk on their initial successes. It could be argued that it was Germany's campaign to lose, but the reality is (IMHO) that while with a few decisions taken differently Moscow might have fallen (ignoring that better Soviet decisions could have had an equal/opposite effect) then whether they could have stayed there is another matter under stiffening resistance.

Napoleon all over again. Logistics wins wars almost without exception. Concentration of effort helps. As they say history doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it rhymes. It takes a particular type of lunatic to look at Russia and fancy your chances of conquering it when you already have another war going on in your rear against a world empire you already can't defeat.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 34
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/29/2012 6:26:37 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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"

I partially disagree. What is correct is that Germany could not win the war the Nazis designed. Their political ideology and goals stood in stark contrast to their military aims. Hypothetically, if Germany had aimed for a Brest-Litovsk like result, with seeking support of minorities, establishing a counter-government etc., this could have mounted enough pressure on Stalin to agree to terms, just to save himself. We should not forget, Stalin a couple of times did send out feelers to probe whether Germany would agree to a seperate peace. But as without Nazis there is no war, this is pretty pointless.

quote:

On thing I find strange though. I never heard about this "demobolization" after France, and before Barbarossa.


In this regard he is correct. After the Fall of France the Wehrmacht issued a partial demobilization. A good number of division were demobilized after July 1940. Exact number I forgot, but source is "Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg: Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion", a volume out of a series published by the military history research department of the German Bundeswehr (first volume came out late 70s, the last just got published a couple of years ago). If one understands German, these books hold great value, giving the German perspective. It shows clearly how blood Barbarossa was, and how it already failed by July 41. How the German High Command completely underestimated the strength of Russian mobilization (the rationale on many fronts to push forward was "if we are so tired, the Russian has to be even worse") and issued orders out of the realm of reality (e.g. the target given to AGS in October/November was push towards Caucasus!).

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 35
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/29/2012 11:16:30 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22595
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I partially disagree. What is correct is that Germany could not win the war the Nazis designed. Their political ideology and goals stood in stark contrast to their military aims. Hypothetically, if Germany had aimed for a Brest-Litovsk like result, with seeking support of minorities, establishing a counter-government etc., this could have mounted enough pressure on Stalin to agree to terms, just to save himself. We should not forget, Stalin a couple of times did send out feelers to probe whether Germany would agree to a seperate peace. But as without Nazis there is no war, this is pretty pointless.


But would there be the war at all without madman Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Would democratic and parliamentary German republic ever wage war like WWII at all (and kill innocent jews and other political / racial enemies by the millions)?


Leo "Apollo11"



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 SigUp)
Post #: 36
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/29/2012 12:17:59 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1244
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Pelton your sanity is only matched by your literacy.

The Western allies left Europe in 1940 when France was beaten. Germany invaded Russia in 1941. From that point Germany vs Russia was essentially a single front war. By the end of 1941 things were going badly for the Germans and by late 1943 there was nothing the Germans could have hoped to do to win the war. Soviet tank and aircraft and artillery production numbers were so far ahead of what Germany could possibly hope to achieve the war was over.

The Western allies reappeared in Europe on the 6th June 1944. By then the single front war was over, the rest was mopping up operations. Sure, big week had destroyed the Luftwaffe and given the allies air superiority, but by that stage it just hastened an already certain victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
If someone thinks differently please list any (and I really mean any) serious historic book by serious historian which claims otherwise...


Amen.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 37
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/29/2012 12:52:27 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I partially disagree. What is correct is that Germany could not win the war the Nazis designed. Their political ideology and goals stood in stark contrast to their military aims. Hypothetically, if Germany had aimed for a Brest-Litovsk like result, with seeking support of minorities, establishing a counter-government etc., this could have mounted enough pressure on Stalin to agree to terms, just to save himself. We should not forget, Stalin a couple of times did send out feelers to probe whether Germany would agree to a seperate peace. But as without Nazis there is no war, this is pretty pointless.


But would there be the war at all without madman Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Would democratic and parliamentary German republic ever wage war like WWII at all (and kill innocent jews and other political / racial enemies by the millions)?


Leo "Apollo11"



Leo "Apollo11"

Please note the one in bold.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 38
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/29/2012 2:29:16 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22595
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I partially disagree. What is correct is that Germany could not win the war the Nazis designed. Their political ideology and goals stood in stark contrast to their military aims. Hypothetically, if Germany had aimed for a Brest-Litovsk like result, with seeking support of minorities, establishing a counter-government etc., this could have mounted enough pressure on Stalin to agree to terms, just to save himself. We should not forget, Stalin a couple of times did send out feelers to probe whether Germany would agree to a seperate peace. But as without Nazis there is no war, this is pretty pointless.


But would there be the war at all without madman Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Would democratic and parliamentary German republic ever wage war like WWII at all (and kill innocent jews and other political / racial enemies by the millions)?


Please note the one in bold.


I noticed it the first time around...

In other words I was just reiterating your point (although I don't think that Stalin would ever compromise - he successfully managed to show German attack on Soviet Union as attack on homeland and devoid it of almost any communist / socialist themes for the most part - the "Motherland" was the one and only theme)...


Leo "Apollo11"

< Message edited by Apollo11 -- 11/29/2012 2:31:41 PM >


_____________________________



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 SigUp)
Post #: 39
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/30/2012 3:27:08 AM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

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.


Pelton -

If these are your arguments for Hitler able to win, then he should have lost.

Let me address the industry/manpower one first.

The myth of German faster industry and manpower mobilization.

Germany, assuming that it would not conscript women for factory work – as that was against one of the founding principles of the Nazi party – simply couldn’t have happened.

After the defeat in the Battle of Moscow forced Albert Speer, who was appointed as Germany's armament minister in early 1942, to nationalize German war production and eliminate the worst inefficiencies.

Under Speer's direction a threefold increase in armament production occurred and did not reach its peak until late 1944. Industrial capacity wasn’t the limiting factor. Plant and machinery were plentiful and partially used, thus it was easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed – or when new labor could be found.

But labor was THE LIMITING factor and had been since 1937 when the armed forces started ramping up. To get around this, Speer took three actions: a) increased the number of women in the workforce by targeting "non-pure bloods" initially, b) imported a massive number of slave laborers (which end up as 20-24% of the total labor force), and c) forced labor contributions from German allies such as Romania and Hungary. As long as labor pool increased faster than the army took replacements out of it, production continued to dramatically increase. When it fell behind the conscript numbers, then you started to see production level off. And this started to happen in the 2nd quarter of 44, then accelerated as the German’s kept losing more and more territory to export labor to Germany.

Next, Germany simply couldn’t build any more of a mech force in 1940 for the 1941 invasion of Russia. It simply didn’t have the fuel to allow a larger force to move if it could have fielded a larger force. It wasn’t until the invasion that it took over the Polish Galician oil production regions, was able to take over more of the Romanian oil production, and a few other minor sources it captured the Russian.

So any additional forces would have been infantry – however, more infantry would have hurt production due to the labor shortage (see above). It was a vicious cycle and NO amount of earlier mobilization would have solved this problem.

Finally, German production methods were simply inefficient. Unlike the Russians or the US – both of whom focused on two primary tank frames, the Germans had six tank frames, four SP frames, and two CZ frames in production for the ENTIRE war. This simply created a logistical nightmare. An example – the PzII tank and the Pz 38(t) were both in production through Nov, 1944. Why? No reason for two light tanks that were marginally effective to remain in production. There is no reason to believe that this would ever change.

So in the end, the Germans simply could NOT have gone to a more advanced war time economy until they started the Russian invasion. And secured multiple sources of slave labor.

The bottom line - every man taken out of the labor force in 38, 39 and 40 would result in lower production. Part of this was overcome by looting France, Benelux and Poland - this looting actually added 40% or so to the German GNP in 40 to 43. Without the looting and ramp up in slave labor, the increased mobilization that was used in Russia would have destroyed the Germany production ability.

And when I have time, I will show why the "German Demobilization" is another myth that people keep repeating but it doesn't hold up on any type of 15 minute inspection. In fact, during 1940, the army increased by a net of 60+ divisions.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 40
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/30/2012 2:27:08 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: online

The Stahel book on Barbarossa in particular has a pretty good review of the issues facing the German army in '41, in particular the nightmare situation with respect to transport, particularly trucks; the only way they had anywhere near what they needed was the impressment of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of vehicles from France et al; and in the scenario discussed, its hard to see how the Germans would have expanded the Wehrmacht (in particular the motorized forces) and expanded the support tail required to keep them moving.

Regardless, doesn't mean that the Red Army would "win" a 1 on 1 contest...but also means one can't simply assume the Germans would have either.

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 41
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/30/2012 11:04:05 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
hfarrish - I agree with you.

And I have stated elsewhere in this forum that I don't think the Soviets had a "lock" on victory. I think that the Germans had a steep hill to climb, but they could have won in the East.

They Germans logistic situation was a nightmare across the board - in many ways, much worse than in WWI on the East front. The mix of weapons and vehicles was simply unbelievable. And the Germans never devoted or developed as great an understanding of logistics as the Allies did. It was regarded as a backwater in the German military.

And I don't think anyone before the invasion would have believed that the Soviet High Command would have made as many mistakes in 41 & early 42 as they did. I don't know if you could find an example of a worse execution of strategy in a major war that still won. Which is one of the reasons that I think a Soviet player has an easier time - anyone that has played a little understands what has to be done and will do it. The SHC just wouldn't do what needed to be done.

One of the more interesting questions is what would have happened if the 41-42 winter had been a "normal winter" rather than the unbelievably harsh winter it turned out to be? If that had happened, then the East front may have well run a much different course. And like it or not, a once in a hundred year winter isn't something that someone plans for ahead of time.

In any case, based on information I have seen, the German Army had approximatley 150,000 French and Benelux trucks in service. I have never seen numbers on how many were on the East front during the invasion so can't tell how many were in service on the East front (actually don't even know if the German's actually know). I do know that at least two supply depots were established for spare parts for French vehicles on the East front - and they ran short of parts sometime in November, 1941. At that point, the Germans were cannabilzing vehicles.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 42
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 11/30/2012 11:30:56 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
I wouldn't go as far to say that the German military regarded logistics as backwater. Certainly they did not devote their resources on it. German military tradition focused more on the operational parts of it. But considering the limitations they faced in the East, they actually did a decent job. Logistics in the Soviet Union was a nightmare. On the other hand, their operational prowess as well as the ability of the lower level leaders were second to none. Imagine what damage a German unit could have done at Anzio for example. Ironic that the military system that was the most liberal in terms of independent thought and taking up the initiative was coupled with a political system and a leader that was the complete oppostie.

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 43
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 12:44:45 AM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
SigUp -

I didn't base my statement regarding that the German Army regarding logistics as a backwater based just on the East front but across all fronts. If you look at the type of officers that were selected for the logistics and supply service, career path, actual authority, command structure, and all the other things, it wasn't anywhere on a near equal footing with on the combat arms.

Even the intelligence arms (not tactical intellingence) was a backwater. The German command structure was centered on the combat arms and other services didn't have the same weight. The best and the brightest literally went into the combat arms.

Compare and contrast the US and German armor selection process. The US logistics arm determine to standardize on three (later two) tank hulls and two half track hulls. The combat arms initially wanted four tank hulls. They lost. The German logistic arm attempted to do the same - standardize on three tank hulls and two half track hulls. The combat arms over ruled them as they did not want a short term fall in production.

On top of that, the German logistics arms were subordinate to the civilian sector. And this continued right up to the end of the war. Rail transportation is a perfect example - in the last two weeks of December, 1941, over 85% of all German railroad engineer specialist in Russia went home for Christmas break. They fell under the civilian labor rules NOT military. This wasn't changed until the winter of 1944. And I can cite hundreds of examples like this. The logistic branch just didn't have the political muscle to enforce the rules needed to be effective.

On the Western front - the breakout at St Lo by Patton. Everyone in the US thinks it was a masterful attack that finally broke open the front that was poorly defended. Take a hard look and you get a different story. The troop density in front of St Lo was about what it was along the rest of the front. What finally happened was that the German's literally ran out of artillery shells, especially anti-tank ammo, BECAUSE THE DEPOTS were put on the wrong side of the river and transport couldn't be found to resupply the guns.

In Italy, you can find the same types of failures.

And in North Africa, the classic mistake of Rommel taking away the air support for the invasion of Malta - which ended up starving his troops when the British ran thier subs back into the underground bins. And shot the heck out of his supply lines as all the air suppression was gone.

It wasn't as extreme as the Japanese Army, but it existed. And it hurt the Germans. In a lighting war, it really didn't matter. In a longer war, it did matter.

As far as the German Army's tactical skill and NCO training - in the 40-43 time period, I agree, they was no other large army that was that was close to thier tactical skill. In 44, that skill was sliding and getting worse while the US, British and Russian skills were getting better. At some point, these crossed. We can argue when - mid 44, late 44, early 45 - I don't really care to be honest as it doesn't matter. By then, tactical skill didn't matter - firepower did - and the Allies had the firepower by several factors over the Germans.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 44
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 1:02:05 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Part of the blame with the tank hulls also has to go to the political staff. The Nazis (especially Hitler) were enamored with new technology, promoting them at every corner. The initial planning of the military did not see that diverse a tank structure. Panzer I was the initial training tank, Panzer II/III/IV were supposed to be the battle tanks for different purposes. Three tank hulls. Things got complicated later on by the addition of the Czech tanks, as well as the decision to stick with Panzer I/II for too long a time. Another problem was also that the German industry wasn't organized as efficiently as for example the American one with focus on assembly line type production and EOS. As the war progressed it was of course a mess with Panther, Tiger, Tiger II etc. As for German skill, the Wehrmacht in terms of skill peaked in Juni 41 before Barbarossa and it went downhill from there. In 1944-45 they were a punching bag for the firepower of the Allies. But even so, they still were plenty strong.

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 45
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 9:58:58 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
They Germans logistic situation was a nightmare across the board - in many ways, much worse than in WWI on the East front. The mix of weapons and vehicles was simply unbelievable. And the Germans never devoted or developed as great an understanding of logistics as the Allies did. It was regarded as a backwater in the German military.


Guess this one of the undisputed lessons of this war. Just as the focus on the (wrong) high-tech weapons is another. Easy to say so in retrospect, though. If you compare early German tanks, I and II, to what their neighbors owned at that point, you start to realize how that happened, though. Or look at the navies, air forces etc. One has to keep in mind that the Germans were basically complete stood down until 1933, and formed all forces and re-developed the necessary technology and industry in only 5-6 years by the time the war began. Needless to say, early German tanks were not great. Some ships had their benefits (pocket BB and fast BC with range, but poor combat stats), and the Bf-109 and Ju-87 excelled for a (short) while). But to really pick up with Allied developments, continued focus was needed (Pz. IV series, FW-190, real BBs of BM class etc, though all were sort of late). Finally, the Germans exaggerated technical detail when they should have moved towards mass production. Yet whether the latter was truly an option for the German war industry, or the concentration on building few but technically superior platforms was a mere necessity due to external limitations as some historians claimed -- maybe, maybe not? Anyway, having had to build an Army from scratch, it may not be that surprising that some areas received less attention than others.

Another factor that probably contributed on the German promoting the importance of logistics might be found inherently in the past experiences that the "Prussian-German" officers corps shared (and hence the thinking): For a good 150 years, German wars were fought in Europe. The logistic infrastructure is well developed, the weather is mild, and distances were never that far as for WW2 standards, even if you substitute trucks for horse cards. Maybe they should have gained some perpendicular experiences from the colony wars in South Africa, but perhaps that seemed irrelevant to their 1933-39 war planning. Small wonder their logistics was meant to fight the nearest neighbors, and proved just sufficient for that, but never for such different environments as the wide and sparsely populated, poorly developed spaces of Russia, or the African dessert.

If G&G ever get to the "War in Europe", and put it on equal footing with AE (i.e. have at least an Axis production system in place), then most like we will see the same thing as successful players in AE do: Limit R&D and productions where possible to a small number of platforms (in WiE also tanks, apcs etc) with best performance/(cost+maintainance) ratio. Likely that will be late Pz IV and perhaps even Pz V, but a lot of high-tech toys with little impact would be rationalized away. Hindsight will probably be most important and impactful for the Axis side, as it seems just in WitE.

< Message edited by janh -- 12/1/2012 10:00:41 AM >

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 46
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 12:31:34 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Germany suffered from many shortages that affected its chances, e.g., key metalurgical elements, oil, even food stuffs. Skilled worker and technologists needed to exploit the captured oil fields, pipeline/tanker car production are often overlooked. Rubber for tires and whatever, etc. Sure, a lot of stuff could be made do with substitute materials, but all that substitution requires effort that detracts from efficiency of simpler materials and techniques. Catches up to you. Then, of course, in a war of attrition the Axis loses. How many Rumanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, etc. divisions would ever be raised? Don't think the ad hoc SS units from non-German sources would be the saviors of the Reich.

Fantasy options for Axis never seem to be matched by fantasy options for Allies. Uh oh, allies, once US committed, didn't need them.


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 47
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 2:42:01 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
janh -

Regarding Prussian history on logistics. In general, I agree with you. Most of the German military experience centered on central Europe and did not required the type of logistical support that the British and Americans had to provide. Where I might disagree is WW1 - for whatever reason, the German military actually had one of the most advance logistical organizations and thinking for its day. Germany pioneered some very advanced concepts in WWI that formed the basis of many of the Allied logistic concepts in WW2 - and then promptly ignored them. Don't know why it happened, but it did.

Regarding the tank hulls. I have a very good understanding of the history of armor development in Germany from 1933 to 1945. I understand why the Germans ended up with so many different hulls. What I fail to understand is the short production runs within each series, the lack of spare forward deployed spare parts, and standardization within production runs. Further, tanks are just an example.

And when the Germans put thier minds to it, they could mass produce. The MG34 to MG42 is an excellent example of a better weapon at lower cost and increased reliability.

I actually am not sure that Germany could have supported many more AFVs in the field that they had - fuel being a deciding factor. Better vehicles yes, but not a great deal more.

But other areas that Germany failed on the logistics front - recycling massive number of Russian vehicles captured in 1942 (in 41 the BTseries probably was worth recycling). Based on German reports, they seemed to have recovered about 10,000 T34s of all types and used about 600. US Infantry divisions seemed to have used about 600 German tanks during the war in Italy and France (unoffically based on unit records - and most didn't last a long time).

Russian 76mm guns is something else the Germans captured in massive numbers but ended up using in only limited quanities. And it appears more that no really organized effort was made to utilize them.

Last, but not least, unit records show a very inefficent deployment of artillery shells and fuel throughout the war. In many cases, the ammo/fuel is there, but in the wrong place. While the Germans are on the offense, you can explain some of this by "gee, they are advancing faster than expected". But on the defense, even in non breakthrough situations, the dumps tend to be in the wrong place and lead to less than optimal deployment.

You don't really see this in higher unit reports, but in the lower battalion/company level reports, it seems to be an on going problem.





(in reply to janh)
Post #: 48
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 4:16:11 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Indeed, those masses of different series of Panzer III/IV were mind-boggling. It was like every half-year an updated version came out. Also, the ignorance of the military considering the Panzer IV was astonishing. Panzer IV originally was designed as a support tank with Panzer III, but it quickly became apparent that Panzer III was not sufficient facing the more heavier tanks of the Allies. Nevertheless even in the utopian planning of the 36 panzer division army (1941 TOE!) Panzer IV was only given a number of 2160, compared to 8000 Panzer IIIs and 4600 Panzer IIs (!). But like turtlefang said, once they made up their mind (Panzer IVh) the result was quite acceptable. While in 1942 only 994 Panzer IV were manufactured, 1943 saw a rise to 3014 (still, far behind T-34 numbers). As for the logistics, perhaps it has something to do with the size reduction of the Reichswehr.

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 49
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/1/2012 6:40:20 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2236
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

[
If G&G ever get to the "War in Europe", and put it on equal footing with AE (i.e. have at least an Axis production system in place), then most like we will see the same thing as successful players in AE do: Limit R&D and productions where possible to a small number of platforms (in WiE also tanks, apcs etc) with best performance/(cost+maintainance) ratio. Likely that will be late Pz IV and perhaps even Pz V, but a lot of high-tech toys with little impact would be rationalized away. Hindsight will probably be most important and impactful for the Axis side, as it seems just in WitE.


I suspect the only change will be that the Axis will get to build units like the Russians. I think that if GG wanted a WiTP production system in WiTE, he would of put one in.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 50
RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. - 12/2/2012 12:26:15 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
+1

I recall they did use quite a bit of it, and in the first two years were particularly fond of Russian 76mm AT guns (esp. when they relied in 37 and 50mm while facing KVs and T-34s), and I recall that they could press enough of them in service for lack or proper 76mm ammo. Might be the same then for the T-34s. Might also be a lack of spare parts, although with so many captured, one should think you could scrape together all you need by ripping apart some.

Regarding supply such as ammo being delivered in the wrong place, a big +1. I read that during the stalling on the land-bridge for nearly 2 months, particularly a lack artillery shells for AGC (and AGN around Pskov) played an important role as there is mention that German counter-battery fire was severely restricted at that time, and reduced offensive and defensive power. There is a mention in OKW diaries that the German withdrawal from the Yelnja bend, the bridgehead, in September 41 was necessitated by a combination of heavy Russian counterattacks threatening a flanking, and German infantry losses -- both which were attributed to the lack of artillery support. Sounds like this situation in game terms would neither be out of supply nor exactly in supply -- it might need a more subtle division of "supply" or "fuel", to enable such situations to be developing correctly in game, but then you'd quickly have the dreaded "quartermasters edition". Perhaps it is best left to the dice and your interpretation of them.

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Germany vs Russia a 1 front War. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.125