How to invade Russia?
- Thread starter Almalexia
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Actually, you fail. The Swedish (mainly) vikings colonised Russia, and remained on the russian throne until they had married and remarried with slavic women many times enough for the viking blood to die out.Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
So, in fact the swedes signed their own deal of death.
stygN said:
I didn't say there weren't, I said there wasn't a large army anywhere. The Germans had a significant numerical advantage across the Eastern front, having committed more men and materiel than the Russians could actually muster at that point. Russia did eventually overtake Germany in terms of men, armour and planes produced, but in 1941 Germany was the lead producer of arms and armour.
As I said, the Soviet reinforcements from Siberia gave them a grand total of around 100 000 men (they were still behind in armour and guns) more than the Germans, and this is after the high casualties the Germans had suffered getting to and fighting over Moscow. At this point, Stalin had committed most of his military to the Eastern front; Germany still had significant numbers in reserve in the theatre, let alone forces they could have drew on from elsewhere.
Actually, he knew fine well that they would. The scorched Earth defensive tactic has been in use since long before Russia was a united nation. Napoleon essentially made two mistakes; in the first instance he overestimated the capacity and ability of his logistic system, and in the second he mistakenly believed the Russian peasants would prefer to be under French rather than Russian rule. Of the two however, it was the first which nailed him.Barry_bon_Loyale said:
The first battle the Germans lose is the battle for Moscow, after the advance has already faltered. The only difference is the Germans attempted to press in to Moscow; Napoleon retreated as soon as he realised he could not last out the winter.
However, the Russians beat Napoleon on numerous occasions; Vilna for example.
Those battles were lost AFTER the winter of 1941. Hitler ordered his men to stand and fight for every inch. Napoleon retreated as soon as he realised the cause was lost. Really, the nazi's got the upper hand there, Napoleon lost one of the largest armies the world had ever seen for nothing, the Germans at least lost men in battle rather than the march.
Probably because we have Napoleon's plans and journals, and thus can see what a truly idiotic idea his invasion was, while Alexander benefits from a lack of records. When considering the invasion, Napoleon himself highlights the uncertainty of maintaining a supply line, the doubt that such a large army could be supplied by conventional means in the first place, his lack of intelligence regarding both the geographic and political situation in Russia and uncertainty regarding Russia's ability and will to fight. And he still decides to invade with a plan which could, at best, be considered as crossing one's fingers ...
That tactic was being used by the Germans in 1941. The Russians had dug in to three defensive belts and chosen to fight for every inch the German's gained. Possibly one of the biggest ironies of history; Zhukov himself was both amazed and shocked at the German propensity to throw their troops headlong into a futile frontal assault. It wasn't until the Russian advance against Germany that they began using the same tactic; difference at that point being Russia had only scraped the top of her recruitment pool while Germany was scraping the bottom.
Because we've met them?lordwolf17 said:
29111943
Regular
Archonsod said:stygN said:
I didn't say there weren't, I said there wasn't a large army anywhere. The Germans had a significant numerical advantage across the Eastern front, having committed more men and materiel than the Russians could actually muster at that point. Russia did eventually overtake Germany in terms of men, armour and planes produced, but in 1941 Germany was the lead producer of arms and armour.
As I said, the Soviet reinforcements from Siberia gave them a grand total of around 100 000 men (they were still behind in armour and guns) more than the Germans, and this is after the high casualties the Germans had suffered getting to and fighting over Moscow. At this point, Stalin had committed most of his military to the Eastern front; Germany still had significant numbers in reserve in the theatre, let alone forces they could have drew on from elsewhere.
Actually, he knew fine well that they would. The scorched Earth defensive tactic has been in use since long before Russia was a united nation. Napoleon essentially made two mistakes; in the first instance he overestimated the capacity and ability of his logistic system, and in the second he mistakenly believed the Russian peasants would prefer to be under French rather than Russian rule. Of the two however, it was the first which nailed him.Barry_bon_Loyale said:
The first battle the Germans lose is the battle for Moscow, after the advance has already faltered. The only difference is the Germans attempted to press in to Moscow; Napoleon retreated as soon as he realised he could not last out the winter.
However, the Russians beat Napoleon on numerous occasions; Vilna for example.
Those battles were lost AFTER the winter of 1941. Hitler ordered his men to stand and fight for every inch. Napoleon retreated as soon as he realised the cause was lost. Really, the nazi's got the upper hand there, Napoleon lost one of the largest armies the world had ever seen for nothing, the Germans at least lost men in battle rather than the march.
Probably because we have Napoleon's plans and journals, and thus can see what a truly idiotic idea his invasion was, while Alexander benefits from a lack of records. When considering the invasion, Napoleon himself highlights the uncertainty of maintaining a supply line, the doubt that such a large army could be supplied by conventional means in the first place, his lack of intelligence regarding both the geographic and political situation in Russia and uncertainty regarding Russia's ability and will to fight. And he still decides to invade with a plan which could, at best, be considered as crossing one's fingers ...
That tactic was being used by the Germans in 1941. The Russians had dug in to three defensive belts and chosen to fight for every inch the German's gained. Possibly one of the biggest ironies of history; Zhukov himself was both amazed and shocked at the German propensity to throw their troops headlong into a futile frontal assault. It wasn't until the Russian advance against Germany that they began using the same tactic; difference at that point being Russia had only scraped the top of her recruitment pool while Germany was scraping the bottom.
Because we've met them?lordwolf17 said:
Your analysis still fails to explain how any combination of military force in the world could possibly hope to defeat the Putin.
This would mean that Russia had an advantage in manpower, right? I have always meant that the Russians had more people then Germany, they could throw people in to combat at a much larger rate, and a much faster rate then the Germans!
Another thing, according to Wikipedia Soviet only lost 2,6 million more soldiers (KIA or MIA) then the Germans (KIA or MIA), so the well equipped German, super army, trained and ready for attack lost around 4 million men KIA or MIA on the eastern front, while the Soviet army, poorly equipped, poorly trained and under reformation lost 6,2 million KIA or MIA.
IF the Soviet had only been able to field 4 million men, they would be defeated and the Germans would loose maybe 2,5-2,8 million. The problem was, the Soviet could field a much larger army! Thus, they won partly because of manpower!
The winter might have destroyed some German troops, but they didn't destroy the recruitment pool. The population of Germany was not big enough, they didn't have enough men!
But wait a minute... Look at the figures, Soviet lost about 13-14% of its population and still brought in more recruits... Greater Germany (as in Germany, Austria, Sudetenland, and so on) lost 8,5 - 9% of its population and used 50 year olds and 12 year olds as soldiers! Was 90% of greater Germanys population female? Or cripples? Or 90 years old? You answer me, but the main thing is that the Soviets managed to field an army even though they lost the most men (in % and in number) then any other country (apart from Lithuania who lost about the same in %, but then again Lithuania did not play a mayor part in the war and had a very small population)! So, how can you possibly say that the manpower of the Soviet army, and the power of will of the Soviet Army, and the sacrifice of the Soviet people played NO part in Germanys defeat on the east front?
Again, the Winter didn't push the Germans back to Berlin. The Red Army did that. And they started to do so in December 1941, just a few months after the German campaign begun. Did 2-3 months of bad weather destroy the German army, but left the Red Army intact? Or were the Red Army simply super human and were able to defeat both the winter and the Germans? Germany had no mayor advance after Operation Blue and the advance into Caucasus that ended in November 1942. This Operation Blue was the last ditch effort, a combined retreat and assault. It was a smart move... If only the Germans had an army to break through with. They didn't.
---
Yes, the winter brought pain, but how can 3,5 million troops, thousands and thousands of tanks and planes get beaten by ONE winter! As far as I can read your post the whole German army got wiped out by the winter of 41/42.. Did every one of those 3.5 million, very well trained, very well equipped soldiers die from cold?
The Soviet soldiers had less food the the Germans, less supplies, less economy, less industry, and still, they prevailed. They had the same winter as the Germans did. Probably more Soviets died from the winter then Germans, but the Soviets were able to put more men in to the fight!
When you walk up a steep hill with a heavy back pack on, you get tired. Who's fault is it? The backpack or the steep hill? With out the steep hill you could carry the backpack, and with out the backpack you could climb the steep hill. The Germans tried to climb the steepest hill (Russian winter), with the biggest backpack (Red Army), and they failed.
That is also up for debate, frankly I don't think anyone have counted them. I've heard numbers ranging from 10 mill to 15 mill civilian dead, and around 6 to 8-9 military dead. According to Wikipedia around 10,651,000 civilian and 6,651,000 military dead (KIA/MIA), and then around 3,6 million POW killed. But then again Wikipedia state the death toll of Poland as "Unknown", another place on wikipedia it say Poland lost over 17% of its population (that counts to around 6 million dead), and by far mostly civilians.
(Also, sorry that I failed to mention Poland as the country loosing the most men in % in WW2, but again, Poland was not a mayor combatant of WW2, it was mainly civilian deaths, and around 4 million of them were Jews gassed or killed in KZ camps.)
So yes, the "commies" lost far more men then the "nazis", and still had a wast army at the end of the war. This means, the Germans got beaten by quantity.
(Also, sorry that I failed to mention Poland as the country loosing the most men in % in WW2, but again, Poland was not a mayor combatant of WW2, it was mainly civilian deaths, and around 4 million of them were Jews gassed or killed in KZ camps.)
So yes, the "commies" lost far more men then the "nazis", and still had a wast army at the end of the war. This means, the Germans got beaten by quantity.
Mirror
Regular
It was also down to that Stalin (Eventually) realised he was no commander, and left it down to Zhukov and other great generals.
Hitler was far more stubborn, refusing to accept advice of his greatest commanders. That was one of the main differences between Stalin and Hitler, but in the core they were very similar.
Hitler was far more stubborn, refusing to accept advice of his greatest commanders. That was one of the main differences between Stalin and Hitler, but in the core they were very similar.
Yes, in core they were bat**** crazy, but Stalin had a rather (note, rather) sane mind. No one knows for sure what physical and mental condition Hitler had, but several claim that he used a bucket of drugs a day and had severe tremors in his left hand suggesting Parkinson's.
With lots and lots of bombs... 
- Status
