"designed to look deadly"

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 10 Oct 2018 06:52

Robert Rojas wrote:
09 Oct 2018 23:54
Yes, decisions are so elementary - unless, of course, you are the one that must shoulder the final responsibility of such a weighty LIFE or DEATH course of action. It's just some sobering food for thought as you move markers around your maps.
Clausewitz wrote about the impossibility of making a mistake in the field of strategy. To such he would surely rank a million German soldiers in January 1945 in Courland and Norway. It's incomprehensible. The real reason, it seems to me, is that Hitler deliberately weakened the defense of Germany, sending troops out of the country.
The reasons for the defeat of Germany in the highest spheres. A million ... 2 million soldiers are not properly placed in time and space.
pfennigs or kopecks worth on this topic that once gravitated upon the assorted PROS and CONS of the Fatherland's mighty King Tiger Heavy Battle Tank - for now anyway
The topic does not always manage to fit. I commented on some, it seemed to me the wrong posts.

viewtopic.php?p=2162321#p2162321

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by BDV » 10 Oct 2018 15:14

Michael Kenny wrote:As I put it many moons ago Germany was going to run out of land before the Soviets ran out of men
That's not a given, though, because it is a tradeoff; the ratio is influenced dramatically by the choices of the players involved.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Cult Icon » 10 Oct 2018 15:37

with the mathematics, perhaps in a optimal scenario they could have made the Soviets take so many personnel losses that they couldn't attack. But how is the German infantry divisions and the panzerwaffe able to surmount the tactical problems in the attack that appeared as early as Dec 1942??? Their combat results from that point onward were muted compared to those in 41/42

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by BDV » 10 Oct 2018 16:12

Cult Icon wrote:with the mathematics, perhaps in a optimal scenario they could have made the Soviets take so many personnel losses that they couldn't attack. But how is the German infantry divisions and the panzerwaffe able to surmount the tactical problems in the attack that appeared as early as Dec 1942??? Their combat results from that point onward were muted compared to those in 41/42
A little bit here, a little bit there, another little bit at some other point, can make a difference to the East Front situation; after all, the largest two Auxiliary forces in the East, Romania and Finland only abandoned the Axis side in Fall of 1944.

However, it does not resolve the utter defeat of Luftwaffe in the West, and the more general problem of WAllies.

As LJADW put it a few times, it's not as if Germans have not defeated Russia 25 years prior, to little to no avail.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Cult Icon » 10 Oct 2018 18:42

^^^

This is however, not addressing the tactical problems that were occurring

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 10 Oct 2018 19:59

Cult Icon wrote:
10 Oct 2018 18:42
^^^

This is however, not addressing the tactical problems that were occurring
The Germans had no more tactical problems for the outcome of the war than what if to link cigarettes to this ... The Germans didn’t have enough cigarettes, so they lost the war.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Cult Icon » 10 Oct 2018 20:35

Check "Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942" and "Hitler's Nemesis: the Red Army" for an accessible explanation. This is also the thesis of the less accessible tome "Colossus reborn".

The Soviets had made a major adjustment to German tactics by Nov 1942 by changes in their organization, training, and fielding of forces with upgraded STAVKA reserves. So essentially the Soviet front (soviet defensive strength) improved to a critical level with saturation of more engineer, anti-tank, SP AT, and armor units. The saturation rate increased dramatically to the situation in the summer in 1943. Forcyck neatly states that in 41/42, whereever the Germans had 150- 200 tanks in a region, they could break through into the depths. I figured out the same thing myself, independent of his book. Afterwards, breakthroughs became costly and uncertain as panzer units had to fight their way in attrition combat, buying time for the Soviets to shift in their reserves to block them and limit their gains. The German infantry arm was also finished as an offensive force by the fall of 1942.

So you have a much deteriorated tactical dynamic for the Axis that got worse as time went on 43-45.

Defensively the German forces were formidable 1941-1944 but offensively only 1941-1942.

The mathematics and spreadsheet analysis has to be connected to tactics and operations somehow..

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 10 Oct 2018 20:52

Cult Icon wrote:
10 Oct 2018 20:35
Check "Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942" and "Hitler's Nemesis: the Red Army" for an accessible explanation. This is also the thesis of the less accessible tome "Colossus reborn".

The Soviets had made a major adjustment to German tactics by Nov 1942 by changes in their organization, training, and fielding of forces with upgraded STAVKA reserves. So essentially the Soviet front (soviet defensive strength) improved to a critical level with saturation of more engineer, anti-tank, SP AT, and armor units. The saturation rate increased dramatically to the situation in the summer in 1943. Forcyck neatly states that in 41/42, whereever the Germans had 150- 200 tanks in a region, they could break through into the depths. I figured out the same thing myself, independent of his book. Afterwards, breakthroughs became costly and uncertain as panzer units had to fight their way in attrition combat, buying time for the Soviets to shift in their reserves. The German infantry arm was also finished as an offensive force by the fall of 1942.

Defensively the German forces were formidable 1941-1944 but offensively only 1941-1942.

The mathematics and spreadsheet analysis has to be connected to tactics and operations somehow..
Impossible to take it seriously because the reasons of defeat of Wehrmacht in the field of strategy. In Belorussia there was a certain position deadlock. The way out was found by Hitler. On perimeter of defense created fortresses, than Russians fully used, having bypassed them. In January 1945, a 500-kilometer throw to the Oder, while a million Germans were inactive in Norway and Courland.
The tank tactics listed by you eventually did not exert absolutely any impact on the result of war.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Cult Icon » 10 Oct 2018 20:59

jesk wrote:
10 Oct 2018 20:52

Impossible to take it seriously because the reasons of defeat of Wehrmacht in the field of strategy. In Belorussia there was a certain position deadlock. The way out was found by Hitler. On perimeter of defense created fortresses, than Russians fully used, having bypassed them. In January 1945, a 500-kilometer throw to the Oder, while a million Germans were inactive in Norway and Courland.
The tank tactics listed by you eventually did not exert absolutely any impact on the result of war.
You post doesn't make any sense.

As for the bolded, this is 100% wrong. German successes in the offense required effective tactics and competency at the operational level. Without these traits, they could not attack effectively.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 10 Oct 2018 21:09

Cult Icon wrote:
10 Oct 2018 20:59
jesk wrote:
10 Oct 2018 20:52

Impossible to take it seriously because the reasons of defeat of Wehrmacht in the field of strategy. In Belorussia there was a certain position deadlock. The way out was found by Hitler. On perimeter of defense created fortresses, than Russians fully used, having bypassed them. In January 1945, a 500-kilometer throw to the Oder, while a million Germans were inactive in Norway and Courland.
The tank tactics listed by you eventually did not exert absolutely any impact on the result of war.
You post doesn't make any sense.

As for the bolded, this is 100% wrong. German successes in the offense required effective tactics and competency at the operational level. Without these traits, they could not attack effectively.
Always considered the tactical level of Germans high. For example, in Ardennes exactly infantry was not enough for Germans to carry out tanks through the mountain-woody area. 16 infantry divisions attacked there. In Courland at that time they were 30.
16+30=46. Defeat of allies; such mathematics correct.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by BDV » 10 Oct 2018 23:17

Cult Icon wrote: German successes in the offense required effective tactics and competency at the operational level. Without these traits, they could not attack effectively.
Also, air superiority. Oh, how Wehrmacht offensive operations relied on air power.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Cult Icon » 11 Oct 2018 00:44

The maximum for close air support was probably at Stalingrad (max 3,000 sorties a day). In 1945 they could still pull off IIRC max 300 ish a day to support operations in Hungary.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2585
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Sheldrake » 12 Oct 2018 22:02

South wrote:
31 Aug 2018 19:12
https://foreignpolicyi.org/the-stronges ... iger-tank/

Good afternoon all,

Not sure if this is appropriate place for article. Am relying on "Discussions...Armed Forces in general".

Article on the redesigns resulting in the Tiger II tank.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Bob Old man,

While any old bait will do to stir an argument on the value of the Panther and Tiger tanks, This is laughably ungrammatical click bait.

The last line in the article is possibly the most contentious...
The only real threat to this tank were aircrafts that could easily destroy it.
Hmm...

Seconds out round two!

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Stiltzkin » 12 Oct 2018 22:35

While any old bait will do to stir an argument on the value of the Panther and Tiger tanks, This is laughably ungrammatical click bait.
Yes, most "articles" on WW2 weaponry are too amateurish, rarely will you find any decent engineering or thorough analysis of capabilites and performances. The Sherman for instance, the average enthusiast's opinion is probably very influenced by filmography, yet its combat rating exceeds that of T-34/76 series tanks and even partially later Panzer IV series tanks. 76mm Shermans have a combat rating (at least according to my analysis/model) above that of T-34/85s and late PzIV (J/H) versions (and to some extent Mark VIs, while approximating Mark Vs levels).
Hmm...

Seconds out round two!
Yes, I am surprised that this belief is still so deeply enrooted.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Oct 2018 22:53

Stiltzkin wrote:
12 Oct 2018 22:35

Yes, most "articles" on WW2 weaponry are too amateurish
As are 80% of history books, You Tube videos history films, Magazine articles and Internet Forums.
In fact the overwhelming majority of all information that we collect is biased or skewed in some way. Most through ignorance but a good proportion by design. Far from being a tool for the discerning the internet has become a platform for the dissemination of ignorance.
I used to think this place was the exception but a recent addition to our ranks posts the most absurd nonsense without any official sanction
Stiltzkin wrote:
12 Oct 2018 22:35
Yes, I am surprised that this belief is still so deeply enrooted.
Do a search for Flat-Earth content on You Tube. That should destroy and hope you have in the power of modern education.
In pre-internet days lots of people believed crazy things but they kept it to themselves. Now you can find many like-minds online and organise yourselves into a movement.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”