Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Stalingrad

 
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 >> Stalingrad Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Stalingrad - 1/6/2013 9:10:04 PM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
When things were going so well for the Gemans, what went wrong at Stalingrad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6thQKSNBSo
Post #: 1
RE: Stalingrad - 1/6/2013 9:23:22 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 17571
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

When things were going so well for the Gemans, what went wrong at Stalingrad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6thQKSNBSo
warspite1

They weren't - have a read of Ostkrieg. The Germans were in big trouble before they launched the operation that culminated in Stalingrad. For the operation itself (Operation Blau) essentially the Wehrmacht had too much in the way of objectives and too little army to achieve them.

Blau went wrong almost from the start. Remember, to allow Blue to happen, Army Group's North and Centre were stripped of much men and equipment. When the attack started the Russians retreated, rather than allow themselves to be surrounded and gobbled up by Army Group South's pincers. Then, as the German supply line got longer, the Germans needed to use satellite troops - Italians, Hungarians and Romanians to man the flanks. The troops sucked into the fighting at Stalingrad were therefore ripe for a counter-attack. Hitler also split the Army Group so that a portion moved into the Caucasus. The army available for this job too just weren't strong enough to come even close to success.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 2
RE: Stalingrad - 1/6/2013 11:15:59 PM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
In addition to the cold conditions, should the Germans been better off to cancel Operation Blue and just ride out the winter?

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 3
RE: Stalingrad - 1/6/2013 11:31:20 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 2311
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: online
Do not forget the dumb austrian recruit holding all power in germany - the disaster in Stalingrad was more or less his fault as he did not permit any withdrawal.

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 4
RE: Stalingrad - 1/6/2013 11:39:15 PM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
I know that many of the mistakes were made by Hitler himself. I sometimes wonder how Georing or Himmler would do, if Hitler had been killed?

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 5
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 12:13:17 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5755
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I know that many of the mistakes were made by Hitler himself. I sometimes wonder how Georing or Himmler would do, if Hitler had been killed?


They never would have gained power.

I beleive germany was the first nation to have univeral health care.

Hitler put the poeple first thats why they loved him so much at the beginning.

The rest of the world was in a depression and Germany was living it up 35-39. The NY times has many great articles on Hitler and many a lib had nothing but good words for Hitler/Stalin and mussi until after the war started. Kinda how they think China is so all that right now.

To say Hitler was a moron would be to say FDR was a plant.

Hitler was a monster, only one bigger was Stalin.

But that doesn't mean they were stupid. If they were so stupid then you should be a millionaire or running a country.

Hilter and Stalin lacked morales thats why Hitler had no problem killing millions Jews and Stalin killing millions his own poeple.

Don't confuse a lack or morales for a lack of smarts.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/7/2013 12:18:11 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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 6
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 12:30:01 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
I thought that Hitler named Goering as his successor? Agian, if the German forces waited out the wintertime, wouldn't many thousands of them to be saved?

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 7
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 12:43:13 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

When things were going so well for the Gemans, what went wrong at Stalingrad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6thQKSNBSo
warspite1

They weren't - have a read of Ostkrieg. The Germans were in big trouble before they launched the operation that culminated in Stalingrad. For the operation itself (Operation Blau) essentially the Wehrmacht had too much in the way of objectives and too little army to achieve them.

Blau went wrong almost from the start. Remember, to allow Blue to happen, Army Group's North and Centre were stripped of much men and equipment. When the attack started the Russians retreated, rather than allow themselves to be surrounded and gobbled up by Army Group South's pincers. Then, as the German supply line got longer, the Germans needed to use satellite troops - Italians, Hungarians and Romanians to man the flanks. The troops sucked into the fighting at Stalingrad were therefore ripe for a counter-attack. Hitler also split the Army Group so that a portion moved into the Caucasus. The army available for this job too just weren't strong enough to come even close to success.

The first part is a myth. Looking at Blau one has to split it into three phases. The first phase was to breach the Soviet lines west of Voronezh and gain the city as anchor point. Phase two then called for a destruction of the Soviet forces between Don and Volga (similar to Barbarossa's plan of destroying the Red Army west of Dvina and Dniepr). The third phase finally was planned like a ride into the Caucasus. Phase one itself was very successful, provoking memories of 1941. The Soviets guessed the German objective wrong with Moscow, but they did anticipate the first strike to come at Voronezh (and then turn north instead of south). Thus the forces at Voronezh were quite strong, with a reserve tank army in place. 4th Panzer Army, however, easily breached the Soviet lines and pushed them back to Voronezh.

What happened then is wrongly described as orderly retreat. In reality it was more like a panicked flight. For a short period in July 42 there was a mass panic in the South. Non-Russian units refused to fight, other units simply flooded South, C&C was a mess. There was a reason why Stalin came up with the no-step-back order 227 of July 28th 42, that included the call for blocking detachments shooting guys that were fleeing. But what that massive flight did achieve was preventing the destruction of valuable forces. This actually led to a massive crisis in the German High Command. Von Bock and Halder in early July disagreed on the schedule of operations. While von Bock wanted to secure Voronezh first (the city itself hadn't been captured yet), Halder wanted to rush the units south to encircle the Soviets. This ended in the sacking of von Bock, but Halder, who gave ever new orders of flanking the enemy, had to discover that July 41 had repeated. The Wehrmacht was unable to destroy the Soviet forces, the pre-requisite of those massive territorial gains, this time even failing to capture major forces. By all indications he himself must have realized that the war was lost and there is a compelling thesis that he actually provoked Hitler into dismissing him, as Halder deliberately created conflicts he avoided the previous year.

< Message edited by SigUp -- 1/7/2013 12:46:54 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 8
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 1:17:09 AM   
A game


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

They never would have gained power.

I beleive germany was the first nation to have univeral health care.

Hitler put the poeple first thats why they loved him so much at the beginning.

The rest of the world was in a depression and Germany was living it up 35-39. The NY times has many great articles on Hitler and many a lib had nothing but good words for Hitler/Stalin and mussi until after the war started. Kinda how they think China is so all that right now.

To say Hitler was a moron would be to say FDR was a plant.

Hitler was a monster, only one bigger was Stalin.

But that doesn't mean they were stupid. If they were so stupid then you should be a millionaire or running a country.

Hilter and Stalin lacked morales thats why Hitler had no problem killing millions Jews and Stalin killing millions his own poeple.

Don't confuse a lack or morales for a lack of smarts.




I agree, Hitler was not stupid, but I think for a lot of people it probably makes WW2 easier to deal with to think he was a moron. Thats a dangerous thing to do though!

Interestingly enough Stalin was also very intelligent but he actually pretended to be less intelligent as a way to fool his enemies as he moved towards power in the russian government. A very good read on that subject and Stalins early days: Young Stalin - by Simon Sebag Montefiore

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 9
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 2:08:23 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Things weren't really going well.The German high command fatally underestimated Soviet strength and resilience.They expected the Soviet Union to collapse within six months but instead it steadily grew stronger.By early December 1941 it must have been clear to the more astute German officers that they'd made a terrible mistake and Hitler's declaration of war against the USA on the 11th must have sealed any hopes they had left.

The disaster at Stalingrad was down to a mixture of arrogance, overconfidence and incompetence both at the strategic and more local level.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 10
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 2:39:09 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Things weren't really going well.The German high command fatally underestimated Soviet strength and resilience.They expected the Soviet Union to collapse within six months but instead it steadily grew stronger.By early December 1941 it must have been clear to the more astute German officers that they'd made a terrible mistake and Hitler's declaration of war against the USA on the 11th must have sealed any hopes they had left.

The disaster at Stalingrad was down to a mixture of arrogance, overconfidence and incompetence both at the strategic and more local level.



I do think the Germans had 155,000 (frozen to death) & 155,000 KIA. But Russia's old allie (namely the cold, cold winter) played a large factor in of itself of the battle.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 11
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 2:56:12 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Things weren't really going well.The German high command fatally underestimated Soviet strength and resilience.They expected the Soviet Union to collapse within six months but instead it steadily grew stronger.By early December 1941 it must have been clear to the more astute German officers that they'd made a terrible mistake and Hitler's declaration of war against the USA on the 11th must have sealed any hopes they had left.

The disaster at Stalingrad was down to a mixture of arrogance, overconfidence and incompetence both at the strategic and more local level.

It's not like the Germans were the only ones to underestimate the bear's strength. British and American officers alike expected the Soviets to crumble after three months. Both parties drew the wrong conclusions from the Winter War and were too much influenced by the Russian performance in WWI. Still, the extent to which the Germans underestimated the Soviets was remarkable. Their justification for pushing beyond breaking point in November 1941 was practially "if we are close to exhaustion, the Soviet has to be even worse". And once again, in 1942 they believed that one final big push would win them the war, that the Soviets did not possess any meaningful reserves, apart from what they already mobilized. It would not be until mid-1943 that the Red Army peaked in terms of manpower.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 12
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 3:10:47 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
AFAIK Stalingrad wasn't even supposed to consume as many resources as it did. It was supposed to be bypassed and/or captured on the march. It was only later that Hitler became obsessed with capturing it via direct assault.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 13
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 3:28:45 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger
I do think the Germans had 155,000 (frozen to death) & 155,000 KIA. But Russia's old allie (namely the cold, cold winter) played a large factor in of itself of the battle.

I don't think the extreme winter of 41/42 was decisive.Even as early as July 41 the alarm bells must have been ringing for some senior German officers and by December, even before the worst of the winter weather, most of them must have suspected that the war wasn't going to end well.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp
British and American officers alike expected the Soviets to crumble after three months. Both parties drew the wrong conclusions from the Winter War and were too much influenced by the Russian performance in WWI.

Yes I'm sure that's right.It's the only explanation for Barbarossa.They must have been convinced that the blitzkrieg would cause the Soviet Union to collapse and when that didn't happen it was game over.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 1/7/2013 3:35:45 AM >

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 14
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 11:32:00 AM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
SigUp got it right. The truth is that success of the preliminary operations of Blau bred overconfidence and basically the Wehrmacht advanced into empty space (militarily speaking) once they broke through.

One other factor that contributed to this was that overextension of the military resources was not apparent immediately in June and July 42. With the arrival of large contingents of allied forces (nearly 3 armies of Italians, Hungarians and Romanians), and the unofficial but substantial recruitment of friendly locals to combat insurgency plus the reserves brought from other areas of the Reich in early '42, meant that OKH did have substantial forces to commit to a southern strategy. The fact that such allies proved incapable of resisting the Red Army only became apparent later on with all these contingents providing sterling service when on the offensive. In effect they only crumbled when confronted by the massed Soviet army when on the defensive.

However, such an Axis concentration of force in the south was essentially dissipated when orders were issued to pursue 2 different targets - ie the creation of a protetective shoulder (which led to Stalingrad) and a push in the Caucasus. In the eyes of Hitler and I would say many of his generals, a Caucasus push provided several advantages military and economical in the immediate and longer term. Although they must have realised that splitting their forces was essentially an error, there were several 'mitigating' factors. They believed that they would continue advancing against a defeated foe on ground and amongst populations that were natural enemies of the communists and by inference, potential allies. They also believed that they could solve the logistical issues involved which were obviously daunting. So basically the whole premise behind the offensive in the Caucasus was more of an armed parade than a real military offensive.

With hindsight we can say all we want. But in '42 the Germans (and not just Hitler) they only saw opportunities and they had not been successful so far by being conservative but only through taking huge risks. this was just another one... 

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 15
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 8:47:28 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
I agree that SignUp has the current belief based on new historical analysis and reports. And Offworlder is right that the Germans split their forces to pursue two separate and very geographically far apart objectives.

But a major failure of the Heer was its intelligence. Even in 42, it simply did not have a handle on the size of the Soviet military machine, its ability to expand, reequip, and bring new forces to bear - especially in the strength that it did on both the Moscow and Stalingrad fronts in late 42. The Germans simply never understood the economic might of the Soviet Union or their ability to mobilize - and when attacked, were literally surprised at all levels.

Last, I trend to agree with Pelton regarding Goering and Himmler if Hitler had been killed. I don't think these two could have pulled off a coup - I think the Army would have "nominated" someone and taken over or a long, bloody mess would have ensured.

And Pelton also right regarding Hitler. While its fashionable to believe that Hitler was a moron now, he wasn't. Pure evil, yes. A sociopath, yes. But he was political genius that actually got a lot of military decision correct against the advice of his generals. And it wasn't a slam dunk that if von Paulus had been given the order to retreat when Manstien counterattack, he could have made it out. Most of the current analysis indicate his fuel and ability to move was very limited by that time.

Stalingrad may well have been lost when the decision was made to split into Army Groups A and B. Given the intelligence that the Germans had, that probably wasn't a dumb decision at the time. But whether they should have believed the intelligence given what they found the year before - that's another matter.

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 16
RE: Stalingrad - 1/7/2013 9:44:48 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"Stalingrad may well have been lost when the decision was made to split into Army Groups A and B."

Lost when Groups A and B were given orders to capture objectives ~ 90 degrees from each other, and advancing meant moving farther apart.

Marquo

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 17
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 12:03:17 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
Did any of Hitler's generals oppose Blua or even Barbarosa?

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 18
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 12:13:46 AM   
laszlozoltan

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I know that many of the mistakes were made by Hitler himself. I sometimes wonder how Georing or Himmler would do, if Hitler had been killed?


They never would have gained power.

I beleive germany was the first nation to have univeral health care.

Hitler put the poeple first thats why they loved him so much at the beginning.

The rest of the world was in a depression and Germany was living it up 35-39. The NY times has many great articles on Hitler and many a lib had nothing but good words for Hitler/Stalin and mussi until after the war started. Kinda how they think China is so all that right now.

To say Hitler was a moron would be to say FDR was a plant.

Hitler was a monster, only one bigger was Stalin.

But that doesn't mean they were stupid. If they were so stupid then you should be a millionaire or running a country.

Hilter and Stalin lacked morales thats why Hitler had no problem killing millions Jews and Stalin killing millions his own poeple.

Don't confuse a lack or morales for a lack of smarts.




hitler was a moron. he was a crazed scuzzy, same as you will find in a homeless shelter in an urban area, the kind of nutbar who will go on with insane theories. delve in mein kampf, a torturous rambling go nowhere waste of time- there is no wisdom, just bombast and babel. that hitler rose to power has less to do with his intelligence than the surrender of those who chose not to stand up to him.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 19
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 1:34:54 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Did any of Hitler's generals oppose Blua or even Barbarosa?

When Hitler disclosed his plan to attack the Soviet Union many generals were dismayed, as it would create the two-front war they dreaded. But ultimately the attitude of the German generals of that time was if the Supreme Commander orders something, it will be done, regardless of one's own opinion. Concerning Blau, the General Staff favoured another attack at Moscow and they did not like operating into the Caucasus. But they did not really resist when Hitler could not be convinced otherwise.

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 20
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 2:06:38 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 709
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Did any of Hitler's generals oppose Blua or even Barbarosa?

When Hitler disclosed his plan to attack the Soviet Union many generals were dismayed, as it would create the two-front war they dreaded. But ultimately the attitude of the German generals of that time was if the Supreme Commander orders something, it will be done, regardless of one's own opinion. Concerning Blau, the General Staff favoured another attack at Moscow and they did not like operating into the Caucasus. But they did not really resist when Hitler could not be convinced otherwise.


I think it was that and (a) the fact that many generals were as supremely overconfident as the Fuhrer himself, in particular the High Command and perhaps more importantly (b) that with so many having been proven wrong in their doubts to previous operations, they were reluctant to look foolish again.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 21
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 4:07:42 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
Did the Caucasus have a rich food source? A completely unrelated quesion is this: If Hitler had taken the British out, would there have been more divisions available for Barbarosa in 1941?

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 22
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 11:32:12 AM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Did the Caucasus have a rich food source? A completely unrelated quesion is this: If Hitler had taken the British out, would there have been more divisions available for Barbarosa in 1941?


The Caucasus was a veritable cornucopia of resources, especially if combined with the Donbas region. Food, mineral and fossil fuels abounded. But as several other threads pointed out, transporting that mineral wealth to the Reich would have been a headache.

Another important factor regarding the Caucasus was its geo-strategic position and the fact that its domination would have choked off one of the best roads for the lend lease supplies whcih went through Iran. It would also have brought Turkey firmly in the Axis camp or in the least would have made them even more subservient to German wishes (keep in mind that they also imported a lot of manganese from Turkey, more or less due to the latter's fear of provoking Hitler).

Also the Caucasus was inhabited by a group of people who were determined opponents of Communism. In fact, even the Germans who normally were quite ruthless in dealling with subject people, were for some reason, well disposed towards the numerous people of the Caucasus (see for example the career of von Pannawitz).

In a sense, the conquest of the Caucasus would have given them a secure 'shoulder' in the south to prosecute the war in Russia. And more in the realm of fantasy, there existed the remote possiblity of bringing the British to the negotiations table through threatening Iran (and its oil reserves) and India (the crown jewel). Although this is pure speculation, given the support that the Germans enjoyed amongst Muslims, the conquest of the Caucasus would have created further problems for the colonial empires.

Regarding the what if scenario of Hitler taking out the British first, it should be noted that till '43, the policy of the Wehrmacht was to send units which were badly shot up or under (re-)construction to France to recover their strength. In effect the original Barbarossa did include the bulk of the frontline forces of Germany with occupied France (not Vichy) being garrisoned by new formations, security divisions or garrison divisions of doubtful value (you know, the ones with 700+ numbering). A few mobile formations were also present as well. The same was the case of the Balkans (which was mainly the responsibility of the Italians, Bulgarians and other local powers like the Croations) with only a few frontline formations really available to fight Tito's partisans, let alone to move to the Russian Front. Other detachments were teh Africa Korps and a few other forces present in Italy. So in terms of number of divisions, the Germans wouldnt have gained much in front line strength unless they committed second line formations to the front.

however, the best effect such a one front war would have had would have been the concentration of the luftwaffe in one theatre. With the equivalent of 3 airfleets deployed in the west and the Mediterranean, in practice it had to deploy half of its strength away from the most crucial land front. A concentrated Luftwaffe would have immesurably aided the German war effort in the East.

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 23
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 7:07:30 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
If you read the memoirs of the German generals, many expressed doubts prior to the campaign, especially splitting the the objectives of Army Group A and B.

The problem is that virtually no period documentation, including personal diaries, that support these after the war claims. From everything that we know, Hitler had the full support of his generals and the only doubts expressed were with the potential speed of the advance (would the Russian destroy the oil fields), and how to support it logistically.

Regarding Barbarossa. They were a number of generals that expressed concerns (and this is supported in period documentation), Guderian being one. And the war games carried out prior to the invasion were exactly demonstrating an overwhelming German victory. BTW, these objectives weren't on moral grounds but that Germany couldn't defeat Russia, Germany needed to finish off Britain first, etc...

But, for Operation Blua, Hitler had the psychological jump on his generals - his plan in Norway worked, France fell in lighting speed when he supported the middle thrust, and Barbarossa worked beyond anyone wildest dreams despite the terrible winter. By 42, the generals were deferring to him.

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 24
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 10:55:19 PM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang

If you read the memoirs of the German generals, many expressed doubts prior to the campaign, especially splitting the the objectives of Army Group A and B.

The problem is that virtually no period documentation, including personal diaries, that support these after the war claims. From everything that we know, Hitler had the full support of his generals and the only doubts expressed were with the potential speed of the advance (would the Russian destroy the oil fields), and how to support it logistically.

Regarding Barbarossa. They were a number of generals that expressed concerns (and this is supported in period documentation), Guderian being one. And the war games carried out prior to the invasion were exactly demonstrating an overwhelming German victory. BTW, these objectives weren't on moral grounds but that Germany couldn't defeat Russia, Germany needed to finish off Britain first, etc...

But, for Operation Blua, Hitler had the psychological jump on his generals - his plan in Norway worked, France fell in lighting speed when he supported the middle thrust, and Barbarossa worked beyond anyone wildest dreams despite the terrible winter. By 42, the generals were deferring to him.


I agree!


Why did Hitler invade Norway? Couldn't those troops have been better used in Barbarosa instead?

< Message edited by Footslogger -- 1/8/2013 11:11:41 PM >

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 25
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 11:34:47 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3114
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
By occupying Norway, Germany secured its 10 million tons per year of Iron ore from Sweden.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang

If you read the memoirs of the German generals, many expressed doubts prior to the campaign, especially splitting the the objectives of Army Group A and B.

The problem is that virtually no period documentation, including personal diaries, that support these after the war claims. From everything that we know, Hitler had the full support of his generals and the only doubts expressed were with the potential speed of the advance (would the Russian destroy the oil fields), and how to support it logistically.

Regarding Barbarossa. They were a number of generals that expressed concerns (and this is supported in period documentation), Guderian being one. And the war games carried out prior to the invasion were exactly demonstrating an overwhelming German victory. BTW, these objectives weren't on moral grounds but that Germany couldn't defeat Russia, Germany needed to finish off Britain first, etc...

But, for Operation Blua, Hitler had the psychological jump on his generals - his plan in Norway worked, France fell in lighting speed when he supported the middle thrust, and Barbarossa worked beyond anyone wildest dreams despite the terrible winter. By 42, the generals were deferring to him.


I agree!


Why did Hitler invade Norway? Couldn't those troops have been better used in Barbarosa instead?



_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 26
RE: Stalingrad - 1/8/2013 11:35:07 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Did any of Hitler's generals oppose Blua or even Barbarosa?

When Hitler disclosed his plan to attack the Soviet Union many generals were dismayed, as it would create the two-front war they dreaded. But ultimately the attitude of the German generals of that time was if the Supreme Commander orders something, it will be done, regardless of one's own opinion. Concerning Blau, the General Staff favoured another attack at Moscow and they did not like operating into the Caucasus. But they did not really resist when Hitler could not be convinced otherwise.


Von Rundstedt was probably the most vocal opponent among the generals about a war with Russia from what I have read. Most of the Generals were told by Hitler that Russia was planning on attacking soon and the Germans had to strike first before the Russians were ready.

Von Rundstedt spoke to Hitler personally in pretty blunt language asking Hitler if he knew what he was going to be in for with a war with Russia.

Von Rundstedt was also in favor of a massive withdraw after the 1941 campaign failed to knock Russia out of the war. He favored pulling back to the Polish border and trying for a negotiated settlement.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 27
RE: Stalingrad - 1/9/2013 2:14:23 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
The Italians, Hungarians, and others that joined Hitler were poorly equiped. Did any of Hitler's generals say that the 'axis minors' were not ready for war? I do remember Mussolini telling Hitler that he would not be ready for war for another 7 years. Did the Germans try to equip their allies with better weapons?

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 28
RE: Stalingrad - 1/9/2013 3:05:02 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

The Italians, Hungarians, and others that joined Hitler were poorly equiped. Did any of Hitler's generals say that the 'axis minors' were not ready for war? I do remember Mussolini telling Hitler that he would not be ready for war for another 7 years. Did the Germans try to equip their allies with better weapons?


I remember reading that to import iron ore from Sweden (vital for the Reich) the Germans had to pay with er... weapons (and this when they were badly needed)

One of the well armed allies were possibly the Spanish Division (250th Div IIRC, in total 50.000 men). But technically the division was part of the Wehrmacht.

I don't think the Germans could have afforded all this armament to arm ALL their allies. But it is true that I can't back up this with any source.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 29
RE: Stalingrad - 1/9/2013 3:44:52 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

The Italians, Hungarians, and others that joined Hitler were poorly equiped. Did any of Hitler's generals say that the 'axis minors' were not ready for war? I do remember Mussolini telling Hitler that he would not be ready for war for another 7 years. Did the Germans try to equip their allies with better weapons?


I remember reading that to import iron ore from Sweden (vital for the Reich) the Germans had to pay with er... weapons (and this when they were badly needed)

One of the well armed allies were possibly the Spanish Division (250th Div IIRC, in total 50.000 men). But technically the division was part of the Wehrmacht.

I don't think the Germans could have afforded all this armament to arm ALL their allies. But it is true that I can't back up this with any source.


Curious: If the 250th Spanish Div was available, could it have been used on Gilbralter? (pardon my spelling)

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Stalingrad 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

0.121