Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 10




View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?
Battle of Stalingrad 34 33.33%
Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) 15 14.71%
Battle of Moscow 10 9.80%
Battle of Leningrad 0 0%
Battle of El Alamein 3 2.94%
Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy) 17 16.67%
Battle of Midway 11 10.78%
Other 12 11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
October 9th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
Kursk, like Normandy, simply brought the conclusion of the war to a quicker end. I'd say that it was in fact the Moscow Counter-offensive that decided the war in the East,
Since I posted that I've revised my opinion and agree with you that Operation Typhoon and the resultant Soviet counterattack was the critical juncture of the war in the east. A stalemate in the East was still possible before Kursk however.
October 9th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Since I posted that I've revised my opinion and agree with you that Operation Typhoon and the resultant Soviet counterattack was the critical juncture of the war in the east. A stalemate in the East was still possible before Kursk however.
Anything is possible, the real question is how probable would it have been. As pointed out, the casualties taken during the Kursk defensive phase were not at all that serious, meaning it didn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
October 19th, 2007  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
Anything is possible, the real question is how probable would it have been. As pointed out, the casualties taken during the Kursk defensive phase were not at all that serious, meaning it didn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
While I have not read all of the comments on this issue, it seems that I can give a word or two. At least I will try. I apologize if I repeat points already raised.

But, the Kursk defeat should never have happened. That is, German troops should have, according to the Prussian logic of maintenance of the aim, been withdrawn from Africa both prior to and during the Anglo-American offensive. The complicating factor was the political dimension. Hitler introduced strange political beliefs that confused ALL operations. Time and time again, the principles of war were overturned.

Nevertheless, even accounting for German error, without the combined effort, Russia was lost...that point is clearer than day.
--
October 19th, 2007  
godofthunder9010
 
 
.............................
October 19th, 2007  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
Your numbers for the Soviet Union are off. The forces in the Western Military Districts numbered some 2.9 million men of whom around 1 million were stationed along or close to the border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

The totals for Soviet and German/Axis forces at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa:

Overall Soviet Union Armed Forces (June 22, 1941):
Divisions: 316.5
Personnel: 5,774,000
Guns and Mortars: 117,600
Tanks: 25,700
Aircraft: 18,700

Overall German and Axis Invading Force (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 166
Personnel: 4,306,800
Guns and Mortars: 42,601
Tanks (including Assault Guns): 4,171
Aircraft: 4,846

Soviet Forces at or near the Soviet/German Border(s) (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 190
Personnel: 3,289,851
Guns and Mortars: 59,787
Tanks: 15,687
Aircraft: 10,743

One of the greatest difficulties in trying to attach factual number to the Eastern Front is simple: Both Nazi Germany and the USSR prove highly unreliable in their historical accounts of ... all sorts of things. These numbers are probably pretty close to accurate. The fact that the full Soviet armed forces were not deployed in the vicinity of the German invading forces does not mean that the "don't count." Zhukov and a large number of divisions got into the thick of things within the first 6 months. Still, it's worth noting that this was the size of things for the immediate fight.

A couple of things to point out. Not all of the German/Axis force was German. About a million were Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, Finn ... not all of which could even come close to boasting the same operational effectiveness of the German Army.

The Soviet tanks were a mixed bag. Some were of the T34 generation ... quite a few actually. A lot were older tanks of quesitonable effectiveness. By the same token, Panzers I and II were technically never intended to be full fledged combat tanks. They get added into the total anyways. On the whole, it's hard to decide who's tank forces were made up of the best quality tanks, but it's clear that Russia had AN INSANE numerical advantage in this department.

While the Soviet fighters kinda sucked, they had a LOT more combat aircraft than the German and Axis invaders did.

In terms of overall personnel, the one thing that the Axis appear to have had a numerical advantage in ... while there is an immediate advantage, border vs border, since Germany had no intention of stopping at the border then you realistically have to count the whole thing. Also, there are a number of accounts placing the numerical strength of the Red Army prior to June 1941 at a much higher number. Wikipedia at least does it's best to go for the most reliable source, but it is possible that the Red Army was actually much much larger in personnel that the numbers above.
October 20th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

The totals for Soviet and German/Axis forces at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa:

Overall Soviet Union Armed Forces (June 22, 1941):
Divisions: 316.5
Personnel: 5,774,000
Guns and Mortars: 117,600
Tanks: 25,700
Aircraft: 18,700

Overall German and Axis Invading Force (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 166
Personnel: 4,306,800
Guns and Mortars: 42,601
Tanks (including Assault Guns): 4,171
Aircraft: 4,846

Soviet Forces at or near the Soviet/German Border(s) (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 190
Personnel: 3,289,851
Guns and Mortars: 59,787
Tanks: 15,687
Aircraft: 10,743

One of the greatest difficulties in trying to attach factual number to the Eastern Front is simple: Both Nazi Germany and the USSR prove highly unreliable in their historical accounts of ... all sorts of things. These numbers are probably pretty close to accurate. The fact that the full Soviet armed forces were not deployed in the vicinity of the German invading forces does not mean that the "don't count." Zhukov and a large number of divisions got into the thick of things within the first 6 months. Still, it's worth noting that this was the size of things for the immediate fight.

A couple of things to point out. Not all of the German/Axis force was German. About a million were Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, Finn ... not all of which could even come close to boasting the same operational effectiveness of the German Army.

The Soviet tanks were a mixed bag. Some were of the T34 generation ... quite a few actually. A lot were older tanks of quesitonable effectiveness. By the same token, Panzers I and II were technically never intended to be full fledged combat tanks. They get added into the total anyways. On the whole, it's hard to decide who's tank forces were made up of the best quality tanks, but it's clear that Russia had AN INSANE numerical advantage in this department.

While the Soviet fighters kinda sucked, they had a LOT more combat aircraft than the German and Axis invaders did.

In terms of overall personnel, the one thing that the Axis appear to have had a numerical advantage in ... while there is an immediate advantage, border vs border, since Germany had no intention of stopping at the border then you realistically have to count the whole thing. Also, there are a number of accounts placing the numerical strength of the Red Army prior to June 1941 at a much higher number. Wikipedia at least does it's best to go for the most reliable source, but it is possible that the Red Army was actually much much larger in personnel that the numbers above.
First off, Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source, it is a reference point. Secondly, you've given a perfect example of why numbers without a context are meaningless. The numbers you've quoted are for the western military districts which go back to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. The troops on the border, that is close to the border, numbered 1 million. The numbers for tank include tanks that were inoperable as well, the real number is lower. Numbers also don't explain why the Red Army lost the border battles, that's learned when one examines the context.
October 20th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Nevertheless, even accounting for German error, without the combined effort, Russia was lost...that point is clearer than day.
That point is only 'clear' to those who don't know the first thing in regards to the Eastern Front.
October 20th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
First off, Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source, it is a reference point. Secondly, you've given a perfect example of why numbers without a context are meaningless. The numbers you've quoted are for the western military districts which go back to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. The troops on the border, that is close to the border, numbered 1 million. The numbers for tank include tanks that were inoperable as well, the real number is lower. Numbers also don't explain why the Red Army lost the border battles, that's learned when one examines the context.
It seems that we have another "My sources are the only correct sources" pedant. If you wish to deny the sources of others it may be an idea to start justifying your own first.

P80 Mk II.
October 20th, 2007  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
First off, Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source, it is a reference point. Secondly, you've given a perfect example of why numbers without a context are meaningless. The numbers you've quoted are for the western military districts which go back to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. The troops on the border, that is close to the border, numbered 1 million. The numbers for tank include tanks that were inoperable as well, the real number is lower. Numbers also don't explain why the Red Army lost the border battles, that's learned when one examines the context.
As your purpose seems to be primarily focussed upon shredding any point of view that is not your own, you can readily expect that I'll not wish to bother anymore. You've managed to answer my post with a holier than thou, "You clearly do not know what the hell your talking about" response. Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source? Who the hell put you in charge of defining what is and what isn't "an acceptable source"? Where's yours? Nobody else seemed to be posting any sources to validate the numbers being thrown around for that piece of the discussion so it seemed like it would be helpful.

Clearly it is not worth wasting my time or effort on. And by the way, you may have noticed the few paragraphs below the numbers posted. That was a perspective and a context.
October 20th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It seems that we have another "My sources are the only correct sources" pedant. If you wish to deny the sources of others it may be an idea to start justifying your own first.

P80 Mk II.
I didn't say anything in regards to my sources, I simply explained why the original posters use of a translated Russian source from Wikipedia gives an out of context view of the situation which is in fact skewed from the reality of what was going on in the Soviet Union and specifically the Red Army.