The New Eastern Front

[Jenisch]

None. But this certainly would not be the case if the war with the West didn't existed and the Barbarossa started like historically.

Also, about the thousands of Soviet armored vehicles and other things, let's quote Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

The LL importance is not clear yet because there are archives still closed, but recent information only proves more and more importance. No one less than Stalin also said the same behind closed doors.

Another point I would like to make for the critics of the LL importance is that if the Soviet Union had the abundance of material like Zhukov says, why they did accepted the help? Since the Soviet Union that saved the world, in my perception it should have reject it in order to let the West handle better the "mediocre" German military contingent it faced. Not to mention the pressure for the opening of new fronts.

 

[Tante Ju]

Gixxerman, I forgot to remind you that you was comparing the T-34-85 with the original Panther, when the correct would be compare it with the Panther II.

T-34/85 was not in same leage with Panther.. more like between the Panther and Pz IVH-J.. and a lot closer to Pz IV.. but it was good enough, so was Pz IV till war end...

 

[Jenisch]

I also would like to point out that I don't see much sense in comparisons such as the decisiveness of the Lend-Lease or the D-Day. Why? Because everything was part of the efforts from the Western Allies. Let's imagine that the Lend-lease was not decisive, it was 10-15% more effort from the Soviet industry needed for it to be critical. Great, so the Lend-Lease specifically was not critical! yeah! But now let's take off the naval blockade and the bombing. Then again we have critical efforts from the Western Allies.

Another thing is the number of casualities in the German Army in the war with the West. Less overall casualities don't necessarily meant that the Soviets would defeat them alone. For example, sometimes it is just 10,000 soldiers that can define victory or a massive defeat. The Soviets for example, thanks to Roosevelt's hard line against the Japanese, they never had the oportunity to attack the Soviet Union, something the IJA was itching to do. The domino effect from relatively few man can be critical.

For those who understand the war as a the global conflict it was, there's hardly a surprise in what I wrote. Unfornately for those who want to resume the war to the Eastern Front, it must have been a surprise.

While many point out that if wasn't for the Soviet resistance the democracies would not won, I just point out if not for the resistance of Britain, or Roosevelt's hard line against Japan, would the Soviets resist? It's the same damn thing isn't?

Those Marxist teachers that are unfornately doing a lot of damage to our education system, and now they are loving put in the minds of students the partial view of the Soviet Union as the country that alone saved mankind from Nazism. Sad...

 

[Jenisch]

T-34/85 was not in same leage with Panther.. more like between the Panther and Pz IVH-J.. and a lot closer to Pz IV.. but it was good enough, so was Pz IV till war end...

Really technically it wasn't, but practically as a medium tank, yes. The Russians HISTORICALLY wanted mass production, not so much quality and the main reason for the T-34-85 enter in production was to not spent any time with new tanks that would affect the mass production (reasons: massive casualities, crude construction with short life span, constant need of replacements). While in such scenario the Russians would be able to put more advanced design in production, the Germans would open even more their advantage in numbers and quality.

Ah, and let me present the biggest argumentative victory in the study of history I ever had, my arguments used here presented for David Glantz, here's his answer:

Dear Mr. Jenisch:

I will conceed your point that if the Soviet Union had to fight utterly alone, it would have been a far more difficult task to defeat Germany decisively. Hitler's rashness, however, would have likly placed German forces in awkward situations like December 1941 and November 1942. And who is to say how long Stalin's ruthless discipline would have held up in the face of such masive Red Army casualties. But since it is history, no-one will ever know.

All the best,

David

As I aready posted many times here, I only say that it cannot be claimed that Germany would defeat the Soviets alone or vice versa, or a draw, it's something impossible to claim.

So, Zhukov is with me, Stalin is with me, Hitler is with me, and David Glantz with vast experience as a Colonel and in the Soviet and German archives is with me. LALALA!

 

[Gixxerman]

A couple of things occur to me in this debate.

Firstly it appears that few want to stick to the terms originally offered, an allied Germany alliance of some description in 1944.
That means Russia already has had years of LL.
It means that they already have a few tens of thousand trucks and the rest.
It also means Germany has already suffered huge losses damage she can never just simply replace as if it was nothing.

The comments about the Russian tanks are if you don't mind me saying so typical.
All this talk of German quality superiority when in fact in many instances the German design was wholly unsuited to the environment in which it was operating.
Things like that overlapping wheel suspension system which (on the testing grounds in Germany) looked state of the art (in the absence of a genuine stabilisation system) were in fact at times in Russia nothing less than a liability.
I would suggest that the true quality in fact lay with the Russian system which actually worked most of the time was optimised for more of the conditions in which it was expected to operate.

Similarly the crudity of the Russia fuel systems.
They actually worked in the appalling cold were properly lagged, unlike the German systems.

There's really not much use in building a relative handful of tanks to Roll Royce (or should I now say BMW - or is it VW, or are they Bentley?) standards - but which have their foibles and do not always work properly in the severe cold - when the opposition can build a couple thousands of Fords which are more than up to the job most of the time.

 

[Gixxerman]

Those Marxist teachers that are unfornately doing a lot of damage to our education system, and now they are loving put the partial view of the Soviet Union as the country who saved mankind from Nazism. Sad...

Where is this happening?

To be perfectly frank Jenisch I find that sort of one-sided view as silly as the opposing one which says that it was the west that won WW2.
Of course it was both acting together.
However only a ridiculously rabid anti Russian (communism has gone, it's ok, there's no need to be afraid of admitting when they did things that benefitted the rest of us) would look at the sacrifices and suffering that went on in Russia and conclude that the bulk of WW2 was not fought to the death for decided there.

Not all of it but certainly the greater part.

 

[Jenisch]

A couple of things occur to me in this debate.

The comments about the Russian tanks are if you don't mind me saying so typical.

But this is truth. The T-34 scared only when it was introduced, because despite all their limitations the Germans destroyed most of them, and could have destroyed them at an unacceptable level if they were alone against the Soviets.

Germany had the superior technology popularly claimed, the difference is that Germany was unable to employ it's techonological advantage in the two-front war it faced historically. With a single front war, without blockade, need to built submarines, LL to the Soviets, bombing, German forces in others fronts, etc, the quantity and quality of the German equipment would very probably do damage in a much larger scale than historically, and again I really have my doubts if the Soviets would be able to hold. I'm with the authour John Mosier in a lot of his arguments about this.

 

[Jenisch]

Where is this happening?

To be perfectly frank Jenisch I find that sort of one-sided view as silly as the opposing one which says that it was the west that won WW2.
Of course it was both acting together.

Don't think I ever said the opposite. I just said this because it's happening. The Marxist teachers are willing to tell how the Communists saved the West. We are largely having the Cold War propaganda version of the Eastern block, when we can finally have a neutral history and let the people do their own interpretations.

However only a ridiculously rabid anti Russian (communism has gone, it's ok, there's no need to be afraid of admitting when they did things that benefitted the rest of us) would look at the sacrifices and suffering that went on in Russia and conclude that the bulk of WW2 was not fought to the death for decided there.

Not all of it but certainly the greater part.

Depends. As I already told earlier, some historians like John Prados belive that the D-Day (and preprations for it) that was the battle that decided the war in Europe. The war in Russia was in a vast country, with a vast population and with vast armies and vast casualities. Personally, I think it's hard to compare it with the one in the West. Stalin has a large percentage of the blame for what happened in the USSR, purging the Soviet armed forces and ignoring warnings for the invasion. Also, the Soviet civilian casualities were in good part due to partisan activities, in which the Germans repressed with brutality and warned the population to not conduct partisan activities (and they didn't know the Nazis planned to exterminate them later). Here we can have a better perception of this by veterans of the Heer:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20

And lastly, Hitler and Stalin fought a war of extermination, without consideration for human life.

With all those factors, it's easy to understand what happened in the way it was. Brutal, the largest invasion of history, but not something that I'm very impressed by it's scale of brutality. It was certainly a very important front, but not the key for the victory in the war. More correctly, one of the keys for the door of victory. And to understand this better, I also can call the BoB the key event, since if Britain was defeated or signed peace, Stalin would feel the full force of Hitler, Italy and perhaps Japan. Precisely the same type of logic many historians use, just with the USSR defeated and the democracies being hopeless to win against the new German empire. Do you think it's fair made a comparison were only the West suffer without it's Communist ally and not vice versa? It wasn't a global conflict for nothing...

 

[Siegfried]

But this is truth. The T-34 scared only when it was introduced, because despite all their limitations the Germans destroyed most of them, and could have destroyed them at an unacceptable level if they were alone against the Soviets.

Germany had the superior technology popularly claimed, the difference is that Germany was unable to employ it's techonological advantage in the two-front war it faced historically. With a single front war, without blockade, need to built submarines, LL to the Soviets, bombing, German forces in others fronts, etc, the quantity and quality of the German equipment would very probably do damage in a much larger scale than historically, and again I really have my doubts if the Soviets would be able to hold. I'm with the authour John Mosier in a lot of his arguments about this.

The early 37mm and short barreled 50mm Panzer III and low velicity 75mm Panzer IV scored against the 'superior' T-34 for several reasons; one was a good radio which meant that the Panerwaffe could often advance with the confused T-34 by shooting from behined. The other is the fact that German tanks had 5 crew members. The commander wasn't trying to be commander and gun aimer at the same time. Better optics and better precision tended to help as well. The other was that the Germans were fighting for survival of their race, the Soviet side was confused. No one dies for a crap ideology like communism except the most gullible. Stalin figured this out and the propaganda changed.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Stalin figured this out and the propaganda Stalin figured this out and the propaganda changed.."

How did it change. Did the Soviet force stop using Commissars ...? Did they start stressing the rape of Mother Russia ..?

"... the Germans were fighting for survival of their race..."

Certainly some Germans thought that .... but (sadly, or, not sadly) to many it was a fight for the survival of Western Christian values .... against godless communism. I have remarked in this forum before that it ironic how key warriors were the sons of Protestant preachers (Hans Rudel, Michael Whitman, Galland's heritage was French Huguenot). I am NOT seeking to make a case here or advance a thesis .... ... I just think it is noteworthy.

All Germany did not have a common reaction against Communism .....

MM

 

[Jenisch]

The early 37mm and short barreled 50mm Panzer III and low velicity 75mm Panzer IV sored against the 'superior' T-34 for several reasons; one was a good radio which meant that the Panerwaffe could often advance with the confused T-34 shooting from behined. The other is the fact that German tanks had 5 crew members. The commander wasn't trying to be commander and gun aimer at the same time. Better optics and better precision tended to help as well.

I understand the reasons. I also know the first T-34's produced did in fact have excellent quality. But the question here is in the capability of the Soviets to resist all the German power, while at the same time needing to produce less to compensate the lack of the Lend-Lease and certainly delay their military actions, or even be unable to continue the war. This happening, how could the outcome would be, predictable? I don't think so. Even Glantz told me the same.

And if we really want to do a realistic comparison for a global conflict, I'm not even considerating the possible participation of Italy and Japan in such scenario.

 

[Siegfried]

Really?
How many Panther 2's made it to the front.
Zero, if I recall correctly.
Whereas several thousand T34/85's did.

The final Panther would have been Ausf F (Ausfuhrung F or issue F). There was time to prepare Panther II but Ausf incorporated several advances from Panther II.

1 More armour on the chasis.
2 Epicylic gearbox to over come the final drive issue
3 The much more heavily armoured but smaller 'schalturm' turrert. This used a coaxial recuperator to save significant space thus allowing a much smaller but more heavily armoured Tigger II like turret with nevertheless more room.
4 stabsised optics with circuits to fire when the gun aligned with the target.
5 gyro-stablised gun to chase the optics.
6 provision for mounting of a coincidence range finder in the turret.

Ausf F would have been capable of carrying the Tiger II's 88mm L71. however because of limitations in elevation when firing Panther probably would have gotten a 75mm L100 gun which would have been as if not more powerfull with initial variants taking the old 75mm L70 gun.

Note 4 and 5 are more sophisticated than simple systems in which gyros stabalised the optics and gun as one unit. Such systems can effectively not fire on the move.,

Ausf F was ready, literally. The turret only needed to be mounted on the chasis, it was only days away.

 

[Jenisch]

Thanks for the informations Siegfried.

Other thing the Germans tanks were already starting to have by 1945 was nigh-vision equipment. Maybe they would have it earlier if there was a war in a single front and much more resources.

 

[Siegfried]

Siegfried only 6048 V2 were made, 3750 man hours at 10,000 is just a bs projection.

Nowhere did I say the V2 project cost more than the Manhatten project, I said the combined cost of the V1 AND V2 projects were more than the Manhatten Project. If you add in B-29 developement cost ( the 2nd most expensive allied project) It does almost equal. But you're comparing to successful allied programs, with 2 German failures.

Lets just compare the V1 and V2s targetting Antwerp, 4000 V1s, 1700 V2s, produced in Antwerp provence ( have to consider the whole provence, since only about 10% hit Antwerp itself) 3700 killed, 6000 injured. That by anyone's standards is a dismal failure.

It seems all your Nazi superweapons were just a few months or weeks from perfection, strange isn't it.

Your misrepresentations of my points and rhetoric is transparentl. I cited specific wespons and time lines; eg that the V1 Ewald-II guidence stations were nearing completion, they were only stopped by beng over run.

The point I made is that the V1 and V2 were on the verge of becomming highly cost effective weapons. The decision to design and produce them was entirely correct and rational. These weapons were put in production ahead of the maturation of their guidence sytems in anticipation of those systems.

Criticisms of these weapons are motivated simply by a desire to discredit the Nazi regime rather than any objective assesment.

All that was required to make them a success was a little time for amortisation of the R+D and mass production setup costs combined with the introduction of guidence systems of greater accuracy. The Ewald-II Saurkirche system for the V1 was a few days away while the V2's vollzirkel system was close as well.

Granted, these weapons were a few months too late along with their advanced guidence stems but that doesn't discredit the concept or the design which has now become the norm.

The Nazi regime might have thrown its resources behined another jet aircraft design and it also would have made no signifant difference.

 

[Siegfried]

Thanks for the informations Siegfried.

Other thing the Germans tanks were already starting to have by 1945 was nigh-vision equipment. Maybe they would have it earlier if there was a war in a single front and much more resources.

Infrared equipment was bound to pay of in the long run. These Anti-Tank active infrared system required illumination and would have been easy to counter with equal equipement in the other side as it disclosed position via the required lamps. The German Navy used a number of passive infrared location and ranging systems, with some success. They tended to be outranged via radar however. GEMA, the makers of Freya radars attempted to make Froschauge (Frogs Eye) a passive infrared system for tank use into a viable weapon. It used a infrared sensitive cell mounted on springs whose postion was modulated via a pair electromagentic coils so as to 'raster' the image.

 

[Jenisch]

Not for nothing that WWII was the first modern war: jet planes, modern submarines (Elektroboat), TV guied weapons, night-vision, infrared guidance, radar, computers and others. Really impressive.

 

[Gixxerman]

I've seen the pics of the Uhu infrared searchlight on a half-track chassis (and I have read of infrared sights on afv's) but as Siegfried says, these are hardly discreet a whacking great IR searchlight (and what it implies for sighting targetting) is not going to stay secret for long.
The MP44 with Vampir sight was also interesting....but pretty bulky cumbersome and also liable to be captured at some point in tact.

In the air I have read that the 'spanner' infrared sight turned out to be very poor, to the point of useless.
But everything everybody has to start somewhere I guess.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Germans never seemed to realize that to win a war you have to get dependable, usable, weapons to the troops to win wars.

The last few years was just a comedy of errors, too exotic weapons, rushed into production before they were ready was not enough. You don't have to impress your enemy, you just have to kill him. If they had concentrated on a few weapons, and not wasted too much resources on too many exotic research projects that didn't have a chance of reaching maturity in time, it might have made a difference.

 

[Jenisch]

I don't know if that was really like this tyrodtom. The tanks for example, one can say they should have produced more simple designs, but this is not always easy to choose. The T-34 was a profund chock to the Germans, and the T-34-85 was equal or perhaps a little superior to the Panzer IV. Also, the Germans didn't know if the Russians and their allies would appear with new tank designs and improvements, which in fact the Russians did with the already mentioned T-34-85 and the IS, and the Americans and British with the Sherman Firefly and the M26. On the other hand, Guderian preffered simple tanks, and even wanted to copy the T-34, which proved impractical.

If I was Hitler, I think I would do the same he did. The Panther was a simple and very effective tank despite it's initial problems, while the Tiger was a complementary machine (like IS). So, in the tank area I think the Germans cannot be blamed much. Also, when war was declared to the US (something inevitable) the subsequent U-boat demanding reduced 10-15% of the tank production in 1942, which certainly had it's impact in the capabilities of the Panzer Divisions.

 

[drgondog]

The Germans never seemed to realize that to win a war you have to get dependable, usable, weapons to the troops to win wars.

The last few years was just a comedy of errors, too exotic weapons, rushed into production before they were ready was not enough. You don't have to impress your enemy, you just have to kill him. If they had concentrated on a few weapons, and not wasted too much resources on too many exotic research projects that didn't have a chance of reaching maturity in time, it might have made a difference.

The research projects (whether you include V-2, Ta 152, etc, in that category) did nothing to really detract from FW 190 or Me 109 mod changes and production. Yet, the 190s and 109s were getting whacked with aircraft equal or better in quality and overwhelmed in skilled resources.

What did you have in mind?