1941 Winter is Horrible!

[Redmarkus5]

I respect your posts which are always intelligent and well informed.

Have you read Panzer Operations by General Raus? I found it a very enlightening account of the operational realities faced by the Germans - everything from dealing with a single KV that refused to surrender in June 1941, to facing the massive Red Army onslaught in 44 and 45.

[Redmarkus5]

Probably very true... something akin to getting petrol from the Port of Karachi to Kabul by road...

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
The German army WAS tailored for short campaigns in places with good roads. However, it is a myth that there was no winter clothing available in advance. The problem was that there was no transportation available to carry everything, so the priority became ammunition, fuel, food THEN warm clothing.

Correct - but the reason large quantities of ammunition and fuel were required, so late into the year, was that the offensive was still being pressed. If a more realistic appreciation had happened and the strategy modified for a two year campaign (in other words two short campaigns, instead of one continuous one), better preparations could have been made for the inevitable winter, which should not have been a surprise.

Another feature that comes from the book, is that even without full winter equipment, the Germans were able to defeat the Russians in -25C conditions, when Hitler's 'hold at all costs' order was relaxed. When Model took over 9th Army, he insisted that the hold order be removed and was able to cut off and destroy two Russian Armies. So even with little winter preparation, with a more flexible strategy, it did not have to be a bad as it was.

All of this is supposition because we will never know, but it's fun to test the possibilities. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I respect your posts which are always intelligent and well informed.

Have you read Panzer Operations by General Raus? I found it a very enlightening account of the operational realities faced by the Germans - everything from dealing with a single KV that refused to surrender in June 1941, to facing the massive Red Army onslaught in 44 and 45.

Thank you, no that's one book that I don't have, but I'm off to 'Amazon' now to look for it. Although I did get quite a library this Christmas, I will put a request through my 'High Command'. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
I respect your posts which are always intelligent and well informed.

Have you read Panzer Operations by General Raus? I found it a very enlightening account of the operational realities faced by the Germans - everything from dealing with a single KV that refused to surrender in June 1941, to facing the massive Red Army onslaught in 44 and 45.

Found it, bought it, didn't tell the 'High Command', expecting a firing squad to be convened in the morning. [:(]

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Marcks was given his instructions by Halder on 01 August 1940. Halder laid down the specific strategic goals for Marcks.

Halder contributed to a 1955 US Department of the Army study (http://www.scribd.com/doc/12981620/1955 ... 94042-205p) which stated that the initial Army Plan (see page 17) called for drives on Leningrad, Moscow and the line of the Dnepr. An advance beyond the Dnepr was not envisioned at that time and the Luftwaffe was to be assigned the task of eliminating Soviet production and military capabilities further east.

The selection of the Dnepr as the objective in the south was based on the poor state of the Soviet road net. This plan was abandoned when Hitler ordered Guderian to switch his attack from Moscow and move south behind Kiev.

And what were the specific strategic goals?

Aha, I see where you put me on the wrong foot with your initial post. the Upper Dnepr runs through Smolensk down to Kiev and so on. Now that you specify the Dnepr was the strategic objective in the SOUTH, I think we have been saying (or at least meant to say) the same thing all along.

However, the Markcs plan was changed before the campaign as it called for AGS to advance to Kiev and beyond from the start. Although the drive for Moscow was delayed because of Guderians diversion and ultimately failed (arguably) because of it.

[Redmarkus5]

We may be. All I was trying to say was that the ORIGINAL advice from the generals was for a much more limited advance because they foresaw the problems of supply.

Exactly where on the river they proposed to stop isn't really the issue

I am just making the point that the generals knew what they were getting into but they were pressured from above to go much further than they though wise.

When I play the GC as Axis, I am planning to follow this earlier plan, focusing on Moscow but stopping along the Dnepr south of Smolensk. We'll see what happens.

[Redmarkus5]

Dig a tunnel and escape to the West!

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I respect your posts which are always intelligent and well informed.

Have you read Panzer Operations by General Raus? I found it a very enlightening account of the operational realities faced by the Germans - everything from dealing with a single KV that refused to surrender in June 1941, to facing the massive Red Army onslaught in 44 and 45.

Superb book...I recommend it aswell...

[Redmarkus5]

Let us know how you get on with it.

Raus makes some interesting observations. One comment I recall was that "The invasion of Russia was a huge improvisation". That really stuck with me, and when you look at a map of advancing Axis units in that light, it conjures up a really different picture than the one you get off the History Channel...

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Singleton Mosby

Looking forward to playing as the Germans in the 1941 scenario. But for now I am enjoying myself a lot playing the other side.

Hitler lost the war in Russia when he made the huge mistake to treat the Ukranians and Perhaps the Bello-Russians as well as subhumans. So, in '33 or something when he wrote his book, in 1939 when he behaved as he did in Poland and during the first weeks of the war when he continued doing this. Had he done as some had suggested to him and 'liberated' the Ukrain and other parts of the SU the people would have been on his side and seen him as a champion, liberating them from Stalin's brutal yoke. So, I think the war was lost beforehand, and for political and ideological reasons.

According to Adam Tooze (The Wages of Destruction) the Germans set themselves up to loose another major war (WWII as it turned out) when they failed to rationalize the agricultural sector of their economy due to the need to satisfy special (Peasant Fascist?) interests in that sector. As a result the agricultural sector absorbed relatively enormous amounts of labor and administrative levels and the German economy was never able to modernize like the USA or the USSR. According to Tooze, the Germans were as mobilized as they possibly could be by 1941 and the apparent leap in production under Speer is just the result of a (poorly-timed) retooling in 1942.
So while it would have been nice if the Germans had not decided that everybody was subhuman, it might not have made all that much difference since they themselves had a sort of subhuman fondness for traditional brotwurst and crippled their economy to make sure they could go on satisfying that particular subhuman need.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Let us know how you get on with it.

Raus makes some interesting observations. One comment I recall was that "The invasion of Russia was a huge improvisation". That really stuck with me, and when you look at a map of advancing Axis units in that light, it conjures up a really different picture than the one you get off the History Channel...

I will, but it may be some time, I am working up, using 'Road to Kiev' and have The Bloody Triangle - The Defeat of Soviet Armor in the Ukraine, June 1941, I can't recommend it yet, as I have only just started.

I feel that the choice of objective is simply to destroy Russians forces in the most economical way, geographic objectives are only useful in that they force the Russians to fight. If you can break Russian power, which helps survive the winter, complete the job in '42, means that once Russian military power is neutralised (contained), all other objectives should fall into your hands.

One of the strategies I tried with WIR was a Marcks plan variant using increased force in the South. The Germans were not to know it, but with large Russian forces, especially Mech. Corps, on that front, victory here would have done a lot of damage, whilst progress could have been maintained into the Russian interior. Guderian had to turn away from Moscow to destroy the Kiev grouping, but with another PZ Group, or more, in Armee Gp. South, those forces can be destroyed, whilst eastward progress is maintained. Objectives are set, such as to destroy as many Soviet forces as possible.

Hitler's Directive 21 was a reasonable plan (except that it caused the Armee Gps to diverge), but I think other variants are worth trying (a Marcks variant allows Armee Gps. to converge in the interior), the problem in 1941, as in 'Blau', was to meddle with the plan and keep switching objectives, in an effort to win them all.

But, in all of this and back to the thread, get ready for winter. [:)]

[Nicholas Bell]

One comment I recall was that "The invasion of Russia was a huge improvisation".

I suggest van Creveld's "Supplying War" for more fascinating details on this.

[pensfanvw]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I respect your posts which are always intelligent and well informed.

Have you read Panzer Operations by General Raus? I found it a very enlightening account of the operational realities faced by the Germans - everything from dealing with a single KV that refused to surrender in June 1941, to facing the massive Red Army onslaught in 44 and 45.

I'm currently reading this book. A very good supplement to this game. Well written account of the 6th Panzer Division's drive towards Lenningrad. My only dissapointment are the included maps. But a must read nonetheless.

Al

[Titanwarrior89]

I feel your pain bro......[:D] Also by the way I was dug-in....but the ruskies are digging me out.[:(][:)]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

The german Army was tailored for fair weather campaigns. The lack of any provision for a cold weather campaign was part and parcel of the Blitzkrieg strategy the Germans employed.

Frankly for anyone not aware of the real life effect of this lack of provisioning for a pan seasonal campaign by the Germans need only watch the episodes of the WORLD AT WAR specific to the Barbarossa campaign.

I cannot stress enough how unprepared the Germans were for a sustained campaign in harsh weather, in these episodes specific to the Barbarossa campaign until 1942 you can see how much the average soldier suffered. What is most remarkable is the German army held in the 1941 winter counteroffensive under these conditions and went on the offensive in 1942.

Frankly I think the Germans could have won the war, had they played thier cards a bit differently, for example in the World at War program I mentioned German general staff officers that survived the war understood the abject stupidity of the extermination policy Hitler adopted in the East, full well understanding that had the Germans coopted the various nationalitys especially in the Ukraine, and presented themselves as liberators and treated the population accordingly the war could have very easily swung in Germans favor.

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I knew it would be bad, but this is BAD! I should have stopped, but I did what the Germans did and pressed on till the very end.

When is this nightmare over!!!

I am not saying the results are not historical, just expressing how hard it is to watch my wonderful army freeze to death. I made the decision to push the attack to the very end, now I am paying for it. A good lesson for when I play a real human in a PBEM.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: pensfan

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I respect your posts which are always intelligent and well informed.

Have you read Panzer Operations by General Raus? I found it a very enlightening account of the operational realities faced by the Germans - everything from dealing with a single KV that refused to surrender in June 1941, to facing the massive Red Army onslaught in 44 and 45.

I'm currently reading this book. A very good supplement to this game. Well written account of the 6th Panzer Division's drive towards Lenningrad. My only dissapointment are the included maps. But a must read nonetheless.

Al

The great thing about the book is that the author starts at the level of a Panzer Div commander and rises through Corps to Army command. At each level the perspective changes and you get an excellent sense of what his focus is in each phase.

Other first hand accounts, such as Panzer Leader, don't have this advantage - the whole tale is told in the voice of a senior commander...

[notenome]

Just to chip in on the debate, IIRC there were two invasion plans. The first was Operation Otto (IIRC) which was the OKH's initial plans after being ordered to prepare to invade the Soviet Union. It called for a drive on Moscow and the formation of winter quarters and was extensively wargamed. Interestingly, in the winter of 1940 STAVKA wargamed a German invasion of the USSR with Zhukov comanding the Germans, and he raised many eyebrows when he managed to take to Moscow.

That said Hitler changed operation Otto into Operation Barbarossa, which would have three focuses: The Ukraine, Leningrad and Moscow, Halder protested and was shot down.

Now as for the merits of taking Moscow, a lot of people seem to act like its just another city. What we forget is how extremely centralized the Soviet regime was. The headquarters of everything was in Moscow, a huge amount of population, industry, rail capacity. Not only that, the entire soviet rail and logistics network east of the Urals was centered around Moscow.

Lastly, in regards to the winter, the Germans had winter clothing, but they opted to transport supplies and ammunition instead. One of the benefits of taking Moscow would have been a large amount of shelter for German troops. Guderian sugested after Kiev that the Wehrmacht make winter quarters, and Im sure he had that in mind when it came to Moscow as well.

EDIT: Im actually pretty sure the name of the first plan was not Otto, can't remember now what it was.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: notenome

Now as for the merits of taking Moscow, a lot of people seem to act like its just another city. What we forget is how extremely centralized the Soviet regime was. The headquarters of everything was in Moscow, a huge amount of population, industry, rail capacity. Not only that, the entire soviet rail and logistics network east of the Urals was centered around Moscow.

If true, it's not reflected in the game. Not that Moscow is likely to be taken by the Axis in evenly matched pbem anyway.

The game sims reality too well in this regard... I wonder how many players (yes, I know there are some!) would be willing to start and finish a pbem GC as the Axis knowing that the best they can hope for after hundreds of turn of struggle is a marginal victory!

A small suggestion would be that, in addition to the random weather option, an option for mild winter be created.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: notenome

Now as for the merits of taking Moscow, a lot of people seem to act like its just another city. What we forget is how extremely centralized the Soviet regime was. The headquarters of everything was in Moscow, a huge amount of population, industry, rail capacity. Not only that, the entire soviet rail and logistics network east of the Urals was centered around Moscow.

If true, it's not reflected in the game. Not that Moscow is likely to be taken by the Axis in evenly matched pbem anyway.

The game sims reality too well in this regard... I wonder how many players (yes, I know there are some!) would be willing to start and finish a pbem GC as the Axis knowing that the best they can hope for after hundreds of turn of struggle is a marginal victory!

A small suggestion would be that, in addition to the random weather option, an option for mild winter be created.

There's no doubt that Axis players are going to need help. I suggest some kind of online picture blog support groups that reassure them that it's okay to be
totally crushed in Berlin 1943.

Mild winter would be nice, but if I play the Russians I'll give the Axis a mild winter, but only if I get to totally reorganize the Russian Army and attack first in May 1941 with an extra 3000 T34s in Guards Armored Corps with morale of 90.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
There's no doubt that Axis players are going to need help. I suggest some kind of online picture blog support groups that reassure them that it's okay to be
totally crushed in Berlin 1943.

Mild winter would be nice, but if I play the Russians I'll give the Axis a mild winter, but only if I get to totally reorganize the Russian Army and attack first in May 1941 with an extra 3000 T34s in Guards Armored Corps with morale of 90.

I have no wish to win, as an Axis player, with any kind of 'help'. I would like to win (if it were possible) against a Soviet force, which has the same capabilities in equipment, doctrine and command that the actual Russian forces had. I would like the German forces to have the same capabilities that the actual forces had, the change would be the strategy that I thought may succeed, I am not looking for an automatic win and I don't expect one.

I would also like to play other games with a Soviet force having a revised 'Armour Doctrine' and better command and control, as if the the 1937 purge never happened.

Or, a Soviet attack on Germany in 1942, or, Stalin strikes first in 1941, or, Hitler dies and Manstein doesn't attack at Kursk, but waits for the Russians to attack first, and so on and so on. There is much more potential in this game than the sad picture you paint, no support groups needed.

I expect that the mods and scenarios to provide these options are being worked on, by minds greater than mine, as we write. [:)]