Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 37




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

 
--
 
May 30th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: -40?


You might be on to something
May 30th, 2014  
lljadw
 
About the - 40: it is possible that one night some where in the SU,the temperature was going down to -40,but this is irrelevant for the claim that the 41/42 winter was very cold .

As usual,incompetence and laziness are ruling :

if on 12 january 2014 it was -30C in Helena (Montana),this proves nothing : it does not mean that it was cold in Springfield,it even does not mean that the winter in Montana was harsh .

Laziness : some one is claiming :it was -40,and every one is parotting him,without taking the time to look if the claim was correct and relevant .


An exemple of incompetence and laziness is Robert Kershaw who wrote in "War without Garlands" (P 495):temperatures slipped to -25C on 4 december and then to -35 and 38 the subsequent days.

But,these temperatures were night temperatures!

And,there is dishonesty : sone one claimed that von Bock did mention in his diary of 5 november a temperature of -30,and,of course,every one parotted him, till,some one sceptical at the WWII Forum was looking at the diary : and: the - 30 was an invention.
Seaton was claiming that the temperature on 24 november was -30,and again about Bock:it has been claimed that Bock mentioned a temperature of -45 on 30 november .

All Baron von Münchhausen tales .
May 30th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Maybe I can give a soldiers perspective on this... 0 degrees when I'm at home and 0 degrees when I'm in the field or deployed are VERY different things. Dealing with the weather on my terms makes it much more bearable...on the other hand, being forced to contend with it for months and months without a break is another thing entirely. Now, if it's -20 at night and I have to sleep on some hay, in a vehicle, or on the ground...it's absolute misery. ESPECIALLY if the wind is blowing. Wind makes everything harder and your misery much more pronounced.

I was in the field last month and myself and my fellow soldiers were convinced that on one of the days the temperatures reached no less than 85 F. We all got sun burnt and were sweating quite a lot...according to the local weather station it was a high of 69 F. I'm sure the air temp was 69 but the ambient temperature was definitely over 80! I've had the same thing happen to me overseas except it was 122 F and 145 F respectively.

With all that being said, I'm sure many of the soldiers on both sides believed they were in those conditions...because it felt like they were in those conditions...so let's not get too bogged down in simple statistics. No matter what anyone says, winter usually sucks for any grunt who has to endure it without the conveniences of a barracks, a home, or whatever.
--
May 30th, 2014  
lljadw
 
The fact remains that Goebbels said that Barbarossa failed because of General Winter (always better to lose because of something supernatural than to be defeated by Untermenschen,otherwise people could ask questions)and that after the war,the generals said that it was all the fault of Hitler .(better to be defeated by the intervention of a corporal,otherwise people would ask questions)

The truth is that 90 % of the Ostheer was not hurt by the winter;there are 2 explanations : the winter was not that harsh (thus Dr Goebbels was telling,as usual,BS,)or 90 % of the Ostheer had winter clothing (and thus the generals were telling,as usual,BS) .A combination of both also is possible .

If it was cold on the German side,it was also cold on the Soviet side .

If no one received winter clothing,normally the Soviets had to be in Berlin inapril 1942.
May 30th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
The fact remains that Goebbels said that Barbarossa failed because of General Winter (always better to lose because of something supernatural than to be defeated by Untermenschen,otherwise people could ask questions)and that after the war,the generals said that it was all the fault of Hitler .(better to be defeated by the intervention of a corporal,otherwise people would ask questions)

The truth is that 90 % of the Ostheer was not hurt by the winter;there are 2 explanations : the winter was not that harsh (thus Dr Goebbels was telling,as usual,BS,)or 90 % of the Ostheer had winter clothing (and thus the generals were telling,as usual,BS) .A combination of both also is possible .

If it was cold on the German side,it was also cold on the Soviet side .

If no one received winter clothing,normally the Soviets had to be in Berlin inapril 1942.

You're missing the point. Winter IS harsh under a soldiers circumstances regardless if it's unseasonably cold, warm, or in between. The soldiers on the ground still live a miserable existence. It slows EVERYTHING down. Even if guys are pulled off the line for frostbite, dysentery, typhoid, battle fatigue, minor wounds, whatever...every loss is felt on the line...especially when a majority of combat units at the front are operating at 50-60% strength anyways. It doesn't matter if those soldiers find their way back in a week, a month, or more...it takes a toll on the logistics of having to move these guys, treat them, feed them, bring them up to fighting shape, and then get them back...only to return to a unit they may not even recognize since the attrition is constant...This kills combat efficiency and morale...

"Only" 10% of the invasion force may have ended up casualties....but I guarantee a majority of those casualties were up on the line, both combat and non combat...which translates to huge percentages in the combat outfits in regards to casualties. Once an outfit drops below 40-50% of their original strength...they're essentially combat ineffective.
May 30th, 2014  
lljadw
 
The story of Sorge is an other exemple of the hoaxes and myths that are swarming in the historiography of WWII.

1)It has been claimed that Sorge informed Stalin about Barbarossa,but that the stupid Jozef (observe the analogy with the stupid Adolf)refused to believe him .The truth is that Sorge (a civilian without military knowledge) only repeated the usual gossips,and that he was wrong for 99 %.

2)It has been claimed that Sorge informed Stalin that Japan had decided not to attack the SU,and that Stalin (meanwhile becoming intelligent) believed him and transferred the Siberian divisions to Moscow,where they stopped the Germans .The truth is that Japan never decided not to attack the SU,that Zhukov already in july transferred the Siberian divisions westwards,and that the Siberian manpower was only 5 % of the manpower the SU sent to the front in 1941.


3) It has been claimed that Sorge told Stalin about the Japanese decision to attack the US,that Stalin informed the White House,but that the traitor FDR kept secret this information to direct the US to the war .The truth is that Japan decided to attack the US on 30 november 1941,when Sorge already was in prison .


How to explain the Sorge hoax ?

It is very simple :in 1960,there was a struggle on live and death between Nikita K supported by the army and the Stalinists;on live and death,because both knew what to expect if the Stalin gang won . OTOH,people were beginning to ask annoying questions about the initial Soviet defeats in 1941 .

Nothing more natural of the Army to say : it was all the fault of Stalin,because "we" had a super spy (Sorge worked for the GRU)but the stupid Stalin refused to believe him and was thus responsible for the initial disasters .
May 30th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
You're missing the point. Winter IS harsh under a soldiers circumstances regardless if it's unseasonably cold, warm, or in between. The soldiers on the ground still live a miserable existence. It slows EVERYTHING down. Even if guys are pulled off the line for frostbite, dysentery, typhoid, battle fatigue, minor wounds, whatever...every loss is felt on the line...especially when a majority of combat units at the front are operating at 50-60% strength anyways. It doesn't matter if those soldiers find their way back in a week, a month, or more...it takes a toll on the logistics of having to move these guys, treat them, feed them, bring them up to fighting shape, and then get them back...only to return to a unit they may not even recognize since the attrition is constant...This kills combat efficiency and morale...

"Only" 10% of the invasion force may have ended up casualties....but I guarantee a majority of those casualties were up on the line, both combat and non combat...which translates to huge percentages in the combat outfits in regards to casualties. Once an outfit drops below 40-50% of their original strength...they're essentially combat ineffective.
And why were the Soviets not in Berlin in april 1942 ?
May 30th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
And why were the Soviets not in Berlin in april 1942 ?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make...
May 30th, 2014  
Doppleganger
 
 
It has to be remembered that temperatures will vary quite markedly over the Moscow battlefield area, as it's quite a big region, 500km from north to south. You will get quite a varied spread of temperatures over such a large area. From memory, I think that Panzer Armies 3 and 4 (northern pincer arm) were more affected by actual temperature than Panzer Army 2, which formed the southern pincer arm driving for Moscow. During November to January It's entirely possible that the temperature was -40C below on some days for some formations but closer to -10C for others.

It's also to be noted that the really heavy snowfalls did not start around Moscow until 4th December, at which point the battle was already lost for the Germans. Thus the weather factor was not decisive. The earlier Raspituta season had more of an impact on the Ostheer than the winter ever did.
May 30th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Soviet Counter offensive


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
It has to be remembered that temperatures will vary quite markedly over the Moscow battlefield area, as it's quite a big region, 500km from north to south. You will get quite a varied spread of temperatures over such a large area. From memory, I think that Panzer Armies 3 and 4 (northern pincer arm) were more affected by actual temperature than Panzer Army 2, which formed the southern pincer arm driving for Moscow. During November to January It's entirely possible that the temperature was -40C below on some days for some formations but closer to -10C for others.

It's also to be noted that the really heavy snowfalls did not start around Moscow until 4th December, at which point the battle was already lost for the Germans. Thus the weather factor was not decisive. The earlier Raspituta season had more of an impact on the Ostheer than the winter ever did.
Dec 4th? The counter offensive didn't begin until December 5th? I think it's safe to say the Germans were in rough shape at this point be it a combination of weather and supply issues in late Nov - early Dec time frame. However the Germans were still advancing. Even if it was like a punch drunk boxer, right up until the counter offensive.