Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

75 years ago Germany and its satellites attacked the USSR.



Despite the spy warning, the attack was unexpected.

A large number of Soviet munition was gathered on the border, but as a storages. According to an version, it was done because Stalin was going to attack first, but much later than June 22



From the first days of the Luftwaffe dominated the sky. USSR lost many aircraft on the ground. Outdated Soviet bombers could not harm coming German troops.



Disorganization, lack of communication, orders indiscriminate attack, cutting the supply line, confused passive commanders led to a series of tragedies.



Despite the large number of tanks in the USSR, they were thrown on the marches where they quickly broke down, went on the attack without the support of infantry, artillery and aviation. The fight lasts until the end of ammo/fuel or first malfunction - there was no supply for that.

It says that the Kursk was the largest tank battle. No, the largest tank battle was in 1941 where we lost.



But there were those who fought to the end. Those who are slow advance of the enemy at the cost of his life, giving the rest of the time to retreat

Attacked the largest nation on earth. Biggest invasion in history, 4 million or so men and machines.

The soviets held the line. No winning the war without there determined effert to bleed axis dry tank by tank. Though when Soviet Union found the Japanese a non threat they rerouted multiple elite brigades to counter the Germans.

Lend lease from USA and UK artic convoys saved them at darkest point.

It was a complex history

I was going to post a thread on this very subject, but you beat me too it.

Two questions I was going to focus on:

1. Could Barbarossa have succeeded?

2. Was the war really won or lost on the Eastern Front?

It was fashionable for years to focus on Britain and America, because of the Cold War, then the wall came done, and the theme became Russia won the war, but now, having read new WW2 history, I'm not so sure if the Russians won it alone...

Take D-Day for example and the campaign in France during June/July/August 1944.

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions...

1: Maybe. If the plan had been a little less schizophrenic and stuck to one thing at a time.

It also started much later than was intended, since the Germans were distracted by the fighting in the Balkans. They might have taken Moscow otherwise.
The USSR was a BIG place however, and realistically the sheer number of men and material that the Soviets could call on was almost certainly going to overwhelm the Germans, it might just have taken a little longer.
Hitler was in total denial about this, when Guderian told him during the planning for Barbarossa that the Soviets had thousands of tanks available to them he didn't want to hear it.

2: Yes, German casualties in the East were 4 times that in the West. If the Germans had 4 times the number of troops in North Africa, they would have probably won (again, complicated by the supply situation and the interdiction by the navy and RAF)

As for the Division thing, remember that the German divisions a lot of the time were "paper" divisions and nowhere near full strength, It doesnt help clarity either that some were disbanded and reformed as new formations with new names but essentially the same personnel (for example Fallschirmjäger-Division Erdmann becomes 7. Fallschirmjäger-Division)

In short, the Germans probably would still have lost if Barbarossa had started earlier and not been messed about with so much, but it would certainly have taken longer to do it.

Edited for clarity and spelling errors.

Agreed on the issue of the divisions.


After the Fall of France, Hitler looked at the glorious Panzer divisions and declared that Germany should have twice as many!


So they did, the problem was they were half the size in armoured vehicles and were actually worse at their job.


I think the idea was to capture Moscow and then hold the Russians to ransom and get a peace treaty with them. But then one group decided to go far to Leningrad, and one went far south to the oil fields. If they had only done one or the other, it might have been better.

It is worth mentioning that the Winter of 1941 was one of the coldest on record.

I'm plugging a book here, but David Edgerton's Britain's war machine ( a fantastic book) offers an explanation as to why the Germans and Soviets suffered so many casualties:

Germany and the Soviet Union suffered from industry that wasn't modern enough.

Example:

The British Expeditionary force (BEF) sent to France in 1939/40 was the world's first mechanised force. Transport, logistics, medical supplies, the lot. Britain had it.

When America entered the war, the sheer amount of firepower, radios, and transport at its disposal was indicative to American industry's strength. Leaving aside combat experience, the sheer amount of firepower and logistics an American division had was superior to anything the Germans and the Soviets could possess.

Germany and Russia suffered because they didn't have the logistics, the transport, and the support, to the same extent Britain and America had. As a result, they were forced to fight a war from the First world war, with horse drawn transport being the backbone, and infantry bearing the brunt.

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

The common reaction of the Soviet soldiers on the news about the opening of a second front was a "but where were you been when we were dying in a bloody mess?".
Of course, this is a major operation and preparing for years and of course no one is obliged to run to the enemy and die to save is not very friendly to them USSR. But anyways.

I think the idea was to capture Moscow and then hold the Russians to ransom and get a peace treaty with them. But then one group decided to go far to Leningrad, and one went far south to the oil fields. If they had only done one or the other, it might have been better.

It is worth mentioning that the Winter of 1941 was one of the coldest on record.

According to Soviet generals, Germans took too much force for capturing Kiev and is therefore not managed to capture Moscow before winter.
In addition, Stalin was preparing for the loss of Moscow and had plans to continue the war if it happens

 Freakazoitt wrote:

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

The common reaction of the Soviet soldiers on the news about the opening of a second front was a "but where were you been when we were dying in a bloody mess?".
Of course, this is a major operation and preparing for years and of course no one is obliged to run to the enemy and die to save is not very friendly to them USSR. But anyways.

I think the idea was to capture Moscow and then hold the Russians to ransom and get a peace treaty with them. But then one group decided to go far to Leningrad, and one went far south to the oil fields. If they had only done one or the other, it might have been better.

It is worth mentioning that the Winter of 1941 was one of the coldest on record.

According to Soviet generals, Germans took too much force for capturing Kiev and is therefore not managed to capture Moscow before winter.
In addition, Stalin was preparing for the loss of Moscow and had plans to continue the war if it happens

But you have to remember that the fear of Communism, the Nazi-Soviet pact, and the Winter War, made Britain and France reluctant to ally itself with Russia, as it had done pre-WW1

Who knows, but such an alliance might have prevented WW2, but you can't blame Britain and France for not trusting the USSR.

I think it's useless to say the war was won or lost on the eastern front or anywhere. Wherever there were Axis forces, the Allies were fighting them as hard as possible.

Take the point about the desert war, for instance. The Italians and Germans never put as many men into North Africa as into Russia for the simple fact they could not possibly have been supplied and would just have died of thirst and starvation. The men they did send over there all got killed or captured, about 620,000 men in total.

Of course the Soviet Union made a huge contribution to the Allied war effort. It also was helped by the Murmansk convoys. Over 4 million tons of vehicles, aircraft and material were landed.

Regarding lend-lease:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

Shotguns 1

9 million men in arms, 1 with a shotgun. And no shells...

Teeth 13,328

Gotta pay people somehow

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's useless to say the war was won or lost on the eastern front or anywhere. Wherever there were Axis forces, the Allies were fighting them as hard as possible.

Take the point about the desert war, for instance. The Italians and Germans never put as many men into North Africa as into Russia for the simple fact they could not possibly have been supplied and would just have died of thirst and starvation. The men they did send over there all got killed or captured, about 620,000 men in total.

Of course the Soviet Union made a huge contribution to the Allied war effort. It also was helped by the Murmansk convoys. Over 4 million tons of vehicles, aircraft and material were landed.

I've never doubted Russia's contribution to victory in WW2, but I agree with you regarding North Africa. For years, I've heard the bullgak argument that if only the Germans had sent more men to North Africa/ Britain was lucky the Germans didn't have more men etc etc

which overlooks the fact that the Royal Navy was stopping the Germans from getting more men sent over in the first

You could have 5 million men in your army, but if they can't get to where they're needed, then they are useless. Simple as that.

We once came up with this brilliant plan (it was terrible but we had to do something with WW2) that Germany should send more men over and then go through Egypt, capture the Holy land and then Hit Russia from the south.


The plan also involved having a man called Nazi Nikolai to front our social media campaign, along with other far worse things that I shall not post of a forum......

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's useless to say the war was won or lost on the eastern front or anywhere. Wherever there were Axis forces, the Allies were fighting them as hard as possible.

Take the point about the desert war, for instance. The Italians and Germans never put as many men into North Africa as into Russia for the simple fact they could not possibly have been supplied and would just have died of thirst and starvation. The men they did send over there all got killed or captured, about 620,000 men in total.

Of course the Soviet Union made a huge contribution to the Allied war effort. It also was helped by the Murmansk convoys. Over 4 million tons of vehicles, aircraft and material were landed.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-some dude with a hat

Lets be real, the Russians beat the Germans. Something like 75% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front. While Lend Lease was a key factor, as was the Western Front Air War and the Allies victories in North Africa and later Western Europe, the Germans were beaten before June 1944.
Frankly one can argue with great merit that the Allies big contribution was the Air War, which effectively hammered the Luftwaffe, particularly in late 1943 -drawing massive German forces to protect the homeland, and in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was effectively destroyed.

All the Allies contributed greatly, but it was the Soviets who killed and died the most.

Now the interesting question is, if the Germans had treated the captured territories well, would it have had a better time and ready force of millions to fight alongside?

I heard a story. Maybe it's just an anecdote. The Americans asked to return after the war, surviving military vehicles back. USSR refused, wanted to use it as an agriculture machines. America has insisted that under the contract must be returned. The Soviet Union had to give. America felt that the to carry back vehicles is too expencive and drown it in the sea has infuriated Soviets.

That is doubtful. The USSR actually paid us back with precious metals (that unfortunately sunk on the way) and the US left much of its equipment where they left it. Besides we're really talking trucks here (LOTS of trucks), most of which would have been pretty worn at that point.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's useless to say the war was won or lost on the eastern front or anywhere. Wherever there were Axis forces, the Allies were fighting them as hard as possible.

Take the point about the desert war, for instance. The Italians and Germans never put as many men into North Africa as into Russia for the simple fact they could not possibly have been supplied and would just have died of thirst and starvation. The men they did send over there all got killed or captured, about 620,000 men in total.

Of course the Soviet Union made a huge contribution to the Allied war effort. It also was helped by the Murmansk convoys. Over 4 million tons of vehicles, aircraft and material were landed.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-some dude with a hat

Lets be real, the Russians beat the Germans. Something like 75% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front. While Lend Lease was a key factor, as was the Western Front Air War and the Allies victories in North Africa and later Western Europe, the Germans were beaten before June 1944.
Frankly one can argue with great merit that the Allies big contribution was the Air War, which effectively hammered the Luftwaffe, particularly in late 1943 -drawing massive German forces to protect the homeland, and in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was effectively destroyed.

All the Allies contributed greatly, but it was the Soviets who killed and died the most.

Now the interesting question is, if the Germans had treated the captured territories well, would it have had a better time and ready force of millions to fight alongside?

Even without Germany invading the USSR, the Allies were always going to win.

B-29 + Atomic bomb + Berlin as a target = Allied Victory...

Case closed

If Germany didn't invade the USSR, why do you think they would declare war on the US?

No US= no B29.

I think the Allies would still have defeated Germany, but the cost in lives of winning the Western Front would have been far bloodier. Millions of Russians died so European, American and British Commonwealth soldiers didn't have to.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think the Allies would still have defeated Germany, but the cost in lives of winning the Western Front would have been far bloodier. Millions of Russians died so European, American and British Commonwealth soldiers didn't have to.

Britain and France could have won the war in 1939/40.

Germany tied down in Poland, meant that an invasion of Germany by Britain and France could have made things very interesting.

 Frazzled wrote:
If Germany didn't invade the USSR, why do you think they would declare war on the US?

No US= no B29.

Also if Germany didn't invade then USSR then some of that money and material could be spent on R&D, not to mention the scores of physicists who were drafted to fight on the Eastern Front, so maybe it would have been a German Atomic Bomb which came first.

An atomic bomb which could be attached to the top of a V2. Goodbye London and all hope for a western front.

 Frazzled wrote:
If Germany didn't invade the USSR, why do you think they would declare war on the US?

No US= no B29.

Britain could have bought B29s from the USA or used a Lancaster or something. USA would have been involved somehow with selling war supplies, and of course, Pearl Harbour still would have happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, on the subject of Barbarossa, with the advantage of hindsight, it is obviously seen as a bad mistake, but, from the German point of view:

1) You defeated Russia in WW1

2) You defeated the World's best army (France) in less than 6 weeks, something 4 years of trench warfare couldn't do

3) The Red Army performed poorly against Finland

4) German morale is sky high.

5) Your spies tell you that the best Russian troops are thousands of miles away in Asia...

6) Stalin's purges robbed the Red Army of key leaders...

Given the above, victory was a possibility and not outwith Germany to do so...

Germany only declared war on the US because the Japanese did.

 Frazzled wrote:

Lets be real, the Russians beat the Germans. Something like 75% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front. While Lend Lease was a key factor, as was the Western Front Air War and the Allies victories in North Africa and later Western Europe, the Germans were beaten before June 1944.
Frankly one can argue with great merit that the Allies big contribution was the Air War, which effectively hammered the Luftwaffe, particularly in late 1943 -drawing massive German forces to protect the homeland, and in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was effectively destroyed.

Hmmm. Mildly debatable. The German war machine was only really gearing up in 42/43 when Speer took over. Everyone bigs up the Russian war machine, but forgets how disorganised it was, and the problems it had when trying to supply a war no longer taking place in Russia.

Had D-Day not occurred, the Germans been able to fortify most of Eastern Poland effectively, and their men/material had pulled back out of Russia earlier on, it is conceivable that another Eastern Front with no clear end could have emerged. I suspect Russia would have taken it eventually, on pure virtue of the scale of supplies coming in from abroad, but it wouldn't have been finished by '44.

This is, of course, looking at a purely Soviet/German conflict. The minute you start bringing in factors like the aerial campaign of 43/44, the invasion of Italy, the nuke, and so forth, each added factor would speed up the anticipated defeat of Germany.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Germany only declared war on the US because the Japanese did.

Hitler had wanted to invade the USSR since the Mein Kampf days. As somebody once wrote, it was the only war he ever wanted.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Germany only declared war on the US because the Japanese did.

German declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. USA declared war on Japan 7 Dec, Germany declared war on US 11 Dec. Another one of Hitlers great ideas

Had D-Day not occurred, the Germans been able to fortify most of Eastern Poland effectively, and their men/material had pulled back out of Russia earlier on, it is conceivable that another Eastern Front with no clear end could have emerged. I suspect Russia would have taken it eventually, on pure virtue of the scale of supplies coming in from abroad, but it wouldn't have been finished by '44.

This is, of course, looking at a purely Soviet/German conflict. The minute you start bringing in factors like the aerial campaign of 43/44, the invasion of Italy, the nuke, and so forth, each added factor would speed up the anticipated defeat of Germany.

Heer forces in the West were understrength units that were officially classed as Defense B-not fit for major operations. Germany could not move them out of France, or well "here comes the British." By the time of Bagration, any additional formations would have been a temporary speed bump. At that time, at that place, they were unstoppable-with overwhelming men and material advantage across EVERY Category: men, logistics, fuel, supplies, food, ammunition, tanks (massively out numbered but also qualitatively equal), artillery, and combat aircraft. In every category the Germans were outnumbered from 2 to 1 to 10 to 1 depending. If you combined all the western allies with the Germans and faced them across the Soviets at that point, the Soviets still would have likely gone through them like gak through a goose.

 Frazzled wrote:

Had D-Day not occurred, the Germans been able to fortify most of Eastern Poland effectively, and their men/material had pulled back out of Russia earlier on, it is conceivable that another Eastern Front with no clear end could have emerged. I suspect Russia would have taken it eventually, on pure virtue of the scale of supplies coming in from abroad, but it wouldn't have been finished by '44.

This is, of course, looking at a purely Soviet/German conflict. The minute you start bringing in factors like the aerial campaign of 43/44, the invasion of Italy, the nuke, and so forth, each added factor would speed up the anticipated defeat of Germany.

Heer forces in the West were understrength units that were officially classed as Defense B-not fit for major operations. Germany could not move them out of France, or well "here comes the British." By the time of Bagration, any additional formations would have been a temporary speed bump. At that time, at that place, they were unstoppable-with overwhelming men and material advantage across EVERY Category: men, logistics, fuel, supplies, food, ammunition, tanks (massively out numbered but also qualitatively equal), artillery, and combat aircraft. In every category the Germans were outnumbered from 2 to 1 to 10 to 1 depending. If you combined all the western allies with the Germans and faced them across the Soviets at that point, the Soviets still would have likely gone through them like gak through a goose.

I don't think a lack of quality troops was a factor in the defeat of Germany during the Normandy campaign, because the Germans had Panzer Lehr in Normandy, and that was composed of Germany's best tank crews equipped with Tigers and Panthers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Had D-Day not occurred, the Germans been able to fortify most of Eastern Poland effectively, and their men/material had pulled back out of Russia earlier on, it is conceivable that another Eastern Front with no clear end could have emerged. I suspect Russia would have taken it eventually, on pure virtue of the scale of supplies coming in from abroad, but it wouldn't have been finished by '44.

This is, of course, looking at a purely Soviet/German conflict. The minute you start bringing in factors like the aerial campaign of 43/44, the invasion of Italy, the nuke, and so forth, each added factor would speed up the anticipated defeat of Germany.

Heer forces in the West were understrength units that were officially classed as Defense B-not fit for major operations. Germany could not move them out of France, or well "here comes the British." By the time of Bagration, any additional formations would have been a temporary speed bump. At that time, at that place, they were unstoppable-with overwhelming men and material advantage across EVERY Category: men, logistics, fuel, supplies, food, ammunition, tanks (massively out numbered but also qualitatively equal), artillery, and combat aircraft. In every category the Germans were outnumbered from 2 to 1 to 10 to 1 depending. If you combined all the western allies with the Germans and faced them across the Soviets at that point, the Soviets still would have likely gone through them like gak through a goose.

I don't think a lack of quality troops was a factor in the defeat of Germany during the Normandy campaign, because the Germans had Panzer Lehr in Normandy, and that was composed of Germany's best tank crews equipped with Tigers and Panthers.

Which could only be let off the lead by the direct command of Hitler himself. Who was drugged up and asleep with strict instructions not to wake him at the time of the invasion. It didn't help either that all the high ranking field commanders, including Rommel, were all away on leave or attending wargames. They Germans were also massively fooled by the Allied diversionary tactics and thought the Overlord invasion was just a side show. If anything its German high command that most of the blame lies with.

Edit: and also, regarding the Panzer Lehr, the tanks crews were indeed some of the best in the war. Unfortunately they were also comprised almost entirely of the most experienced instructors and training units, thus essentially robbing the future of the Panzer corps for a temporary gain. Once lost, those men and their potential to pass on their experience and lessons learned could not be replaced.

The Panzer Lehr division also took a lot of damage from the Allied bombings that came right before the invasion, and Hitler set them further back than the chief coordinator of Normandy's defense, Rommel, wanted. Those two factors combined to make the German armored divisions in France unable to prevent the formation of an Allied beachhead.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Panzer Lehr division also took a lot of damage from the Allied bombings that came right before the invasion, and Hitler set them further back than the chief coordinator of Normandy's defense, Rommel, wanted. Those two factors combined to make the German armored divisions in France unable to prevent the formation of an Allied beachhead.

It's very arguable if they would have done any good being closer any ways. The threat of naval bombardment was even worse then aerial.