>>63290 "A little over two weeks in, some 300,000 Russians had been captured. But then, in a fatal miscalculation, Hitler paused to divert forces from Army Group Centre to the south towards Kiev. The delay proved disastrous, stalling the attack on Moscow and forcing the ill-equipped German troops to fight in one of the worst Russian winters ever recorded."
Without that stupid mistake, and without the whole attack being delayed by 5 weeks because Germany had to invade Greece after Italy wasn't able to do the job, Germany would have taken Moscow within a couple of weeks.
>>63422 And then what? Moscow had nothing, it was of no significance to the Russian government. It was pretty much destroyed with all vital shit for the gov. and the war taken out, right? The whole idea of taking the capital and winning the war could not apply to WW2, and moreover a country that large.
>>63422 I want this meme to die. If he hadn't diverted the forces towards Kiev and the Baltic and instead rushed towards Moscow his flanks would've have been badly exposed. Dealing with the Soviet forces in Ukraine was vital otherwise any attack on Moscow would risk getting attacked from the south which could lead to encirclement.
>>63260 I wonder what would happen if Barbarossa started at Narva, Vitebsk, Gomel, Chernihiv and Kharkiv.
Oh right. We need it to happen again.
>>63707 Moscow didn't have much but you're forgetting that Russia back then had fuckall after Volga river line (Well, also Urals but Ural industrial zone was nothing in comparison). In fact, I'm pretty sure Hitler's original plan was exactly that: taking over most of Central Russia and even allowing Stalin to move the capital to Samara and fuck around in North Asia for as long as he wanted.
>>63260 Yeah, I totally wasn't a mistake, it just didn't work out right. How do we call that again? Oh, a mistake.
Fun facts: >The Axis forces outnumbered the Red army posted in the western districts >The Germans severely underestimated the Soviet industrial capacity, reserves and infrastructure >Regarding the infrastructure it wasn't even so much that it was underestimated but the fact it was deemed not important because-see next line >Most importantly they underestimated the will of the Soviet people to fight. "We only need to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crumbling down" meme
The German plan was to wipe out the Soviet army in the western districts and roll into the urban centres while the Communist government in Moscow collapses. They knew something was wrong in 1941 already, when they captured hundreds of thousands of troops yet kept meeting new field armies. It was nothing like the west where a decisive victory led to a surrender.
They ended up fighting deep in Russia with over extended supply lines, badly prepared for a war of attrition and fighting increasingly larger&better equipped forces that were fighting on home turf close to their supply lines.
>>64254 To add to this for people dismissing Moscow;
Moscow was an important logistical centre with rail connections going every which way thus it was of great strategic importance. Another thing is to mention the difference between reaching Moscow and taking Moscow, one of the, if not the, largest cities in Europe.
>>64356 Yes, that's what I'm saying. As I mentioned, there was also a large industrial center in the Urals but without Ukrainian land and factories, without Caucasian oil and without Central Russian industry it would've been game over.
I can't find an earlier map right now (this one is 1982) but even so, look at the population density map. Russia is a barren wasteland in most of its territory.
>>64413 >2. Taking Moscow doesnt kill Russia. It has happened before. That happened before uninterrupted frontlines and total warfare. Grande Armee walked through the Smolensk road to Moscow, sat there for a while and was promptly kicked out.
>>64469 >it was kicked out More like it went home, since there was nothing for them there. However Hitler's army would have been kicked out, since all of eastern Russia was producing tanks and soldiers at an unprecedented rate. The soviet biomass would just wash away the germans eventually. This war couldnt be won.
>>64416 >without Ukrainian land and factories, without Caucasian oil and without Central Russian industry it would've been game over. Well no shit, but the Axis didn't have 10 million men to throw at those objectives, and even if they did they'd have a hard time supplying them. Even when they concentrated on the South-east in 42' they couldn't take Stalingrad and move trough the Caucasus to get to the oil despite managing to completely wrong foot the Soviets who were expecting another drive on Moscow.
Assuming they Germans could have handled being so far deep in Russian land. Over-extension, as well as not being used to the lay of the land, the lack of resources of Germany and eternal Russian resistance in both conventional military means as well as partisan means would destroy the Germans before they could have really dug into the land.
>>64535 In my opinion, Eastern Front guerrilla warfare is very overrated, especially on Soviet side. It was very prominent in swampy forests of Belarus but almost nothing happened in important transit regions of Eastern Ukraine, albeit Ukrainian Nationalists did manage to establish a relatively powerful presence in West-Central Ukraine; however that only happened AFTER 1943.
This being said, overexpansion was still a large problem and on that I perfectly agree with you.
>>64511 I am always amazed at how well Germany did in WWI. Alone against the world, pretty much, at two opposite fronts, fighting a few states each one of which was fueled by an enormous territory of satellite states, colonies or BIG RUSSIA. And yet they held out, gained ground in all directions, and kept winning long enough for the civilians back home to start getting tired of war and rebelling despite the army not losing.
>>64638 On the off chance this is not bait (though the third sentence sort of gives it away)...
The army was losing. Even after it had secured the east and thrown its entire weight in the west - it was defeated. Their last gasp offensives were a failure. On the homefront - this is well before the revolutions - they were running out of resources and had no manpower. On the frontlines, they were literally in full retreat for months before the end of the war and before the revolutions.
>>64717 So they werent really losing, per say, as much as they were having their gains reduced. I just think of "losing" as being worse off than when you started. But if the trend continued, they would have began to lose.
However, the peace deal, and UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER was signed when they were still ahead on the score board.
>>64638 >despite the army not losing What? At the end of the war the German army had no morale left and was crumbling and losing ground more and more quickly. The stalemate was definitely broken and only Ludendorff weaseling his way out of his responsabilities with the "stab in the back" myth told otherwise.
Also the civilians back home weren't just "getting tired of war" they were starving to death by the hundreds of thousand thanks to the Allied bloackade.
>>64739 Do you know why the fighting did not continue? Because it did not have to. Because Germany was defeated.
You are taking 'gained territory' as the sole marker of victory.
However, reality does not work that way. Germany had no manpower, no resources, its armies were in retreat, its last defensive line was broken through in several places. Germany was done and defeated.
But don't take my word for it, take people like Ludendorff who in September declared the army could not hold anymore and started calling for an immediate ceasefire. Or the imperial chancellor Hertling who described the situation on the front as hopeless. Or Groender who after taking over and confirming the gravity of the situation already started to demobilize and withdraw troops.
>>64843 The plan was to take Moscow before the Winter, and they nearly did, if it wasn't for Italy not being able to invade Greece and Hitler making one stupid tactical mistake that baffled all of his generals. They were winging the Winter War.
>>65462 No you dip, Barbarossa didn't call for the capture of major cities. Hitler wanted to gobble up land. "My generals know nothing about the economics of war" he said. So the push on Moscow was halted and diverted to swallow up the last of Red Army resistance in the Ukraine.
>>65668 I'm saying more of a failure of the Invasion of Normandy. I think the loss of so many troops would not only create a loss of faith in the allied leadership, but would add strength to the Fortress Europe propoganda. I think the western allies would abandon the Russians and bagration wouldnt have achieved as much success because the Germans could reallocate troops to the East from the West.
>>63422 >Without that stupid mistake, and without the whole attack being delayed by 5 weeks because Germany had to invade Greece after Italy wasn't able to do the job, Germany would have taken Moscow within a couple of weeks. And then what? This isn't a fucking videogame m8, conquering Moscow isn't an immediate win condition, they had already set shop in the Urals. Also, it's not like this was the first time they would have scorched the earth, they did the same shit with Napoleon
Not him but Baku was the goal for the southern offensive, Stalingrad was just supposed to be a place on the map where the front's flanks were supposed to be secured until it got blown up into what it was
The mistake was presenting the war as a war against the Russian people instead of a war against communism in general. With the right PR there would have been more desertions as well as less resistance and break out attempts from encircled Russian units
The invasion wasn't a mistake, that was necessary, but how Hitler did it was utterly fucking retarded. He split his forces just some 50-100 miles away from Moscow because he just had to fucking get Stalingrad to shove it in Stalin's face
>>65743 Moscow was the center of communication for all of the Soviet Union. All major power, phone and rail lines ran into Moscow along with all highways. If Moscow was captured the Soviet Union would've literally collapsed.
The delay doesn't matter either, Germany could've easily captured Moscow in October.
>>65790 1. No it wouldn't and 2. Even if it did, it wouldn't have ended any differently, since even if they managed to conquer it, they would have no way of keeping it along with the entire eastern part of the soviet union
>>65831 Most Soviet industry was captured in 1941. Mass shipment of industry to the urals didn't really begin until 1942. Having captured most major cities, including the capital. Russia would literally have no means to fight an enemy without its communication, supplies, a central government and leadership.
>>65754 Not Polish, but they did have some really good victories and powerful forces. Then of course they instantly get butthurt about being defeated by a ragtag gang of Ukrainian steppe highwaymen so whatever.
>>65806 That is defeating by invasion. A lot of aggressive wars started by Russia ended up in laughable defeats.
>>65835 Mongols kind of count since they pretty much started Russia, in my opinion. Poles certainly do because history of Russia as opposed to Principality of Muscovy is generally counted since Ivan III's rule. Unless you mean Russian Empire, then it's 1721.
>>65902 >Mongols created Russia I agree, they indirectly caused its creation. That doesnt mean they conquered it.
>poles count No. The objective of that was was to destroy Myscovy. The objective wasnt reached. And again, Russia didnt even exist at the time. Myscovy was a very, very tiny portion of what we consider to be the Russian land, people and core founding cities.
>>65916 It was an important cultural center for sure but no way in hell was it the heart of all Russians, especially since Russian national consciousness as we know it formed as an aftermath of the war of 1812 in the first place.
DESU the Eastern Front exhibits the blowback of supremacist rhetoric. Describing your enemies as subhuman primitives might increase morale in wars against African polities (ie the Zulu), but when two belligerents are not that different in technology, the supremacist power will underestimate the other.
Initially, the Nazi high command drank all the Kool-Aid of Slavic inferiority. They truly believed that the USSR, as a degenerate state, would actually collapse after being invaded. Hitler expected the womanly Asiatic Russian army to surrender to slaughter in many engagements.
Ironically, the supremacist rhetoric (and stories of German cruelty) likely made the Russians fight harder.
>>65850 The Germans were making work of the armies in Italy. The Germans had the advantage of terrain and would've held up the Americans and British for a while.
It's all about internal factors, Eisenhower was already ready to step down if the Invasion was a failure. This would create a vacuum in the leadership. Also the news of a catastrophic Invasion with great loss of life would've hit the public hard, and would probably have caused the public to call for peaceful negotiations.
>>65944 >And again, Russia didnt even exist at the time. Myscovy was a very, very tiny portion of what we consider to be the Russian land, people and core founding cities.
Actually no, Ivan III's Muscovy is pretty much Russia proper. Anything more is just colonies. Sure, they aren't separated by the sea but that doesn't make Russian policy towards them any less of a colonial one.
Polish objective by that point was putting a favorable monarch on the throne, which they did for a while.
>>65967 >who is Patton Also consider that Normandy had no chance to fail Allies had superior airpower and strategic bombers You see American propaganda saying "muh Hitler's impenetrable Atlantic wall" In reality they attacked a few pillboxes with limited ammo, hell in the non American beaches there was almost no resistance And consider that hitler didn't want to send panzers to defend the beaches and even if he did it the allied airpower would had destroyed them
>>66191 Not exactly, Germans did present themselves as liberators from "judeo-bolshevism" in USSR territories. The problem was their actual treatment of the local population. Instead of actually utilizing the anti-communist views of people which were actually quite strong, Germans were just seen as another type of invaders which weren't any better, and better policies were started being conducted too late to change anythiing.
Picture is your average propaganda for occupied territories, "Stalin, The Artonist and Killer, Has Come to an End"
IF, and that a big if, The Germans managed to get close enough Moscow to bombard it, who is to say it wouldn't have been another Stalingrad only happening earlier. The German war machine was primarily meant for large blitzkrieg operations on open ground, they sucked at urban warfare, hell they didn't even manage to take Leningrad which was virtually abandoned by the Soviets to it's own defenses.
Secondly had they managed to take Moscow they would face the imminent danger of being encircled, the Soviets knew that the German army was divided into several army groups all over Russia, they would have to attack one army groups in order to distract them and then start an offensive , which is what basically happened at Rostov and Rhezev.
>>66453 >Leningrad Hitler had no intention of capturing it. He wanted a siege that would liquidate the city and then enter.
>encirclement at Moscow Unlikely, the Germans were very sure to cover flanks, especially in 1941. Also the soviets wouldnt have had the strength to counter attack after being driven back for months. Were assuming moscow was captured in October. They realized that with a very large front, holes in the line can be exploited so they were very careful to avoid it. Also the reason the Soviets were able to exploit the encirclement of the 6th Army at Stalingrad was because the German offensive had Romanian Divisions guarding the German north flank. The Soviets quickly destroyed the northern flank and encircled Stalingrad.
The war had already resulted in total operational failure by 1943, the Stalingrad meat grinder had permanently traumatized the Germans who now wanted a pitched battle, which was what Kursk was essentially. After that the Germans would never be able to compensate these large losses. D-Day happened in 1944 and the war by then had turned largely towards the Russians favor.
>>66561 >Hitler had no intention of capturing it. They had no resources to do so, they couldn't even cut it off.
>Unlikely, the Germans were very sure to cover flanks False, in their advance Germans were very fucking bad at securing their flanks
>Were assuming moscow was captured in October. >October Why is that again
>Also the reason the Soviets were able to exploit the encirclement of the 6th Army at Stalingrad was because the German offensive had Romanian Divisions guarding the German north flank. Why do you think there was a Romanian division on the flank?
>>66597 But they did not start their assault on the Russians with their full force: They were delayed, several divisions in the West, Air wings in the west, Defences being built in the West, huge air raids from the Allies at their Industrial zones and material aid from the Allies to the Ruskies I was talking in a hypothetical where Hitler and Stalin went head to head by themselves
>>66641 Germans had more then enough means to capture Leningrad. They had it completely encircled. They chose to destroy the city instead. look it up.
Basically any scenario where the German army doesn't capture Moscow by October or early November 1944 ends in failure of Barbarossa.
Look up operation Uranus, the Soviets exploited the situation at Stalingrad because the Hitler begged his allies for more troops to cover his flanks. He got them. But they collapsed once the Soviets attacked.
If they took Moscow then it would be an urban war of attrition like Stalingrad, the Germans would need to defend Moscow even though Moscow did not have any logistical value for the Russians apart from the train network.
The entire strategy of the Barbarossa campaign was wrong. The German mentality was that capturing urban centers was like capturing victory points. They shouldn't have split their armies to those huge army groups, but instead should have focused on Baku and pushing the Russian army behind the Urals through tactical maneuvers.
Also lol do you really think that even without the Romanian failure the Germans had a chance at Stalingrad? They had essentially leveled it to the ground, entered and "captured" and yet were still getting killed like flies, because they had no idea how to wage an urban battle.
>>66708 >Germans had more then enough means to capture Leningrad. They had it completely encircled. False
>They chose to destroy the city instead. look it up. False again, army group north was deprived of its best units.
>Look up operation Uranus, the Soviets exploited the situation at Stalingrad because the Hitler begged his allies for more troops to cover his flanks I asked you WHY there were Romanian and Italian troops on the flanks. Pro tip; It was because Germany could not spare their own.
>>66714 This reeks of false garbage. The German 3 Army group plan is one of the greatest Orders of Battle of all time. Also, the plan never was a zerg rush for victory points (cities) it was a land grab. Hitler at multiple times resurrected troops to swallow up pockets in the Ukraine. "My generals know nothing of the economics of war" is what he said. He preferred to capture resources such as grain and coal and for Fall Blau, oil.
Germans were however shit at Urban warfare. Only until 1943 did they developed a competent Urban strategy with real equipment in tactics, --see recapture of Kharkov--
>>66758 OKW and Army group north had the forces to capture Leningrad (4th Panzer Group) OKW specifically held off against taking Leningrad because they would have to deal with food supply of the masses. So they decided a prolonged blockade would be favorable and they could March in next year after the population died during the winter.
Also you basically agreed with me on my point about Hungarian and Romanian armies
>>63260 It was a mistake Germany might have recovered from if Hitler had avoided losing his fucking mind and declaring war on the USA. It is doubtful Roosevelt would have convinced Congress or the American people to focus on Germany, as opposed to the gooks who'd just sucker punched them, if he hadn't.
>>66880 >OKW and Army group north had the forces to capture Leningrad (4th Panzer Group) OKW specifically held off against taking Leningrad because they would have to deal with food supply of the masses. The panzer group was split from the army group north and moved to army group centre for the assault on Moscow before it reached Leningrad.
>Also you basically agreed with me on my point about Hungarian and Romanian armies No, I didn't. You claim the only reason they were encircled is because the Romanians were covering the flanks, fact is the only reason they were encircled is because they had inferior forces, went on the offensive anyway, and didn't properly prepare for the pincer movement. You, on the other hand, are "blaming" Axis allies for German blunders.
The whole of Amry group centre resulted in total failure by early 1944. The were forced to defend a the huge Wotan line that had little tactical value with regards to the things they had gained so far.
If indeed Hitler believed what he was doing was capturing resources, he went the wrong way about it strategically.
Concerning Operation Citadel Guderian had already realized how pointless it was to attack a well defended line, essentially having two huge armies fight, expecting German panzers to provide superiority:
>In light of the obvious heavy defenses the Soviets had been preparing for the attack; the operation was a clear misuse of the Panzerwaffe. The result would be a significant weakening of the panzer forces, forces that Guderian had been trying to rebuild. In a conversation with Hitler on 14 May 1943 Guderian pointed out the futility of the operation, asking: "My Führer, why do you want to attack in the East at all this year?" To which Hitler responded: "You are quite right. Whenever I think of this attack my stomach turns over." Guderian concluded, "In that case your reaction to the problem is the correct one. Leave it alone
What Guderian already already knew was the mistake at Moscow, that is,attacking blindly to fulfill a strategic objective for mostly morale reasons while over extending yourself. A mistake the German high command repeated again and again.
>>67027 >Which could've easily been captured in 1941, but chose to wipe it off the earth. With what? Infantry storming it? That worked great in another city named after another communist statesman. They "chose to wipe it off the earth" was because they had no alternative to a siege as resource for taking it simply weren't there as they were diverted to other army groups and army group north was put on the back burner.
>>67089 Not true, they specifically avoided capturing it for the winter because they didn't want to deal with having to feed the civialian population during the winter. The siege option wasn't their only option. It was their choice.
>>67115 >Not true, they specifically avoided capturing it for the winter because they didn't want to deal with having to feed the civialian population during the winter. Yes, because they cared so much about soviet civilians and totally did not need a major rail centre or the port associated with it, right?
> The siege option wasn't their only option. It was their choice. You'll keep repeating that, yes, but it's only true in your mind. They didn't even have the fucking resources to cut off Leningrad completely and here are you claiming it was their choice not to take it.
>>67170 >needed the port and rail Didn't need this at all. Riga and Danzig already served as the principal Baltic ports. >cared about civilians They didn't that's why I'm saying this. To avoid having to deal with it. They would let the Russians starve.
>keep repeating it. Of course I will and its true, by December 3rd 1941 Leningrad was completely cut off by land. Flanked by the Germans to the south and the Finns to the north.
>>67264 >Didn't need this at all. Riga and Danzig already served as the principal Baltic ports. False, closer to the front means less fucking stress on the rail network which was already overloaded, not to mention denying the soviets one of their major industrial regions.
>Of course I will and its true, by December 3rd 1941 Leningrad was completely cut off by land. Flanked by the Germans to the south and the Finns to the north. False again, the shores of Lake Ladoga were never taken and the city was kept in supply trough it.
>You're running out of material, dude Maybe the non existent 4th panzer army will take leningrad even though it wasn't there any more, right?
>>67264 >important industrial region Even if it was, which it wasn't. There wouldn't be any output coming from the city as there were no lines of supply. So it was already not helping the Soviets any.
>Lake lagoda frozen Only for parts of the winter. Even then barely any supplies were entering the city. Most of the life line was meant to evacuate women and children. Even sea lane traffic wasnt getting through, the finns had patr boats destrying all russian shilling in the lake. The only time a permanent road was set up to supply the city was in January 1943.
4th Panzer Army was diverted, but it the 18th infantry Army still had the troops and supplies to take the city, even after the 4th PAnzer was detached.
Also, most of the rail lines were in German hands, they were only deprived of the hub inside the city itself. The rails were used with great success to carry supplies and troops toward the Leningrad front.
>>67519 >Even if it was, which it wasn't False again. The city kept producing tanks, machine guns, munitions, etc all the way until it was relieved. Not at any point did it stop its productions, in fact workers were prioritised with food supplies, Kirov Plant never stopped it's manufactory .
>There wouldn't be any output coming from the city as there were no lines of supply. So it was already not helping the Soviets any. False again.
>Only for parts of the winter. Lake Ladoga doesn't need to freeze.
>Even sea lane traffic wasnt getting through False again. Shipping never stopped.
>4th Panzer Army was diverted, but it the 18th infantry Army still had the troops and supplies to take the cit Here you go again, infantry storming the 2nd largest city in the USSR, totally going to happen.
>Also, most of the rail lines were in German hands, they were only deprived of the hub inside the city itself. The rails were used with great success to carry supplies and troops toward the Leningrad front. The rail was the primary way to transport supplies on the eastern front. The part of "great success" you literally made up as the rail network was severely overburdened and not controlling the hub severely clogged up the trafic
>>67792 >false again You mind telling me WHY besides the KNOWN FACT that you can't get war material out of a city that is encircled unless you have -air supply (didn't exist during the siege on a continuous basis) -land, road, rail. (Cutoff, impossible) -sea, Germans were destroying anything that was entering or leaving the port by air. Anything that was going to enter the city was destroyed by Finnish air and patrols. The Finna broke alot of the Soviets code by then and.new when supplies were running to the city.
>lake lagoda doesn't need to freeze Of course it did. If little to no supplies were being run when it was unfrozen then it would need to freeze to create and over ice convoy. While they did use but mostly to evacuate civilians.
>rail traffic Any rail system captured by the Germans was out into immediate use. Also they didn't need a Leningrad hub as they already had a Riga (remember :^) and Minsk hub to divert rail traffic to Army group center and north. Traffic with the Finna was mostly run by sea or through Sweden.
>>68071 >You mind telling me WHY besides the KNOWN FACT that you can't get war material out of a city that is encircled unless you have Because Lake Ladoga was never blockaded and Leningrad continued producing munitions and supplies.
>Of course it did. If little to no supplies were being run when it was unfrozen then it would need to freeze to create and over ice convoy. While they did use but mostly to evacuate civilians. See, false again, Lake Ladoga was never blockaded and supplies kept entering and leaving the city at all times.
>Any rail system captured by the Germans was out into immediate use. Also they didn't need a Leningrad hub as they already had a Riga (remember :^) >resorting to Meme's And in North Africa they had Tripoli, why would they need Tobruk? Retard, shorter supply lines means less stress on the rail network.
>and Minsk hub Which was fucking overburdened
>You're wrong my man. No, you are, as already demonstrated and by the fact you merely ignore the subjects you were wrong about (Leningrad not producing, 4th panzer army, etc.)
>>68156 >lake lagoda was never blockaded, hmm never said that. Germans and Finna constantly attacked the supply lines. That's why even after winter 1942 supplies getting in couldnt even provide for 5% of the city.
>war goods getting out Miniscule at most, Stalin abandoned Leningrad because he believed it wasn't decisive to the war.
>shorter supply lines I think you're forgetting that the Wehrmacht in 1941 was one of the most well supplied armys. Only untill 1942-1943 did the ost Heer feel the strain of supplies because of allied bombing on the homefront, partisans, and Soviet fighter bombers attacking the rail network.
>Minsk overburdened Nah, Minsk was a routing hub. They would either deflect north or center.
Towards either Riga for AG N or Smolensk for AG C.
>>68362 >I think you're forgetting that the Wehrmacht in 1941 was one of the most well supplied armys. False, they weren't even able to secure enough winter provisions for their troops.
>Miniscule at most, Stalin abandoned Leningrad because he believed it wasn't decisive to the war. Again, not true at all, this is also a constant point of debates, because it was priorities rather than food and relief for the inhabitants.
Leningrad gave to the front 713 tanks, near 3000 cannons, more than 10300 mortars, 480 armoured cars, 58 armoured trains. In July – December, 1941 Red Army received more than 3 million shells and mines, 40000 rockets, big quantity of other military equipment. It is a lot of or a little? The following comparative data are in this regard indicative: in the second half of the year 1941 in Leningrad was released 10,1 % from all cannons made in the country, 23,5 % of mortars and 14,8% of tanks. About 52% of mines and 68 % of the shells spent by the front during this period was made in Leningrade Produced cannons, mortars and ammunition went not only to the Leningrad front, but also under Moscow. In the hardest period of the Moscow battle over 400 cannons, about 1 thousand mortars of various calibers and nearly 40 thousand armor-piercing shells were sent from the besieged Leningrad . On November 28, 1941 the commander of the Western front G. K. Zhukov sent the telegram to Leningrad: “Thanks to Leningrad people for the help to Moscow in fight against blood-thirsty Hitlerites”
>Nah, Minsk was a routing hub. They would either deflect north or center. The Railroads towards Minsk and including the Minsk hub were overburdened and unable to provide enough supplies for full operations of army groups, again one of the reasons why AG north was put on the back burner
>>68474 Literally all your supply statistics are from before the siege. Therefore they mean absolutely nothing. Post some figures from during the siege and we'll see how they really helped the war effort.
>>68560 Bo-hoo I forgot to quote two lines, the siege began on September.
>During the second half of the year 1941, (November – December of this year were one of the most difficult months), Leningrad gave to the front 713 tanks, near 3000 cannons, more than 10300 mortars, 480 armoured cars, 58 armoured trains. In July – December, 1941 Red Army received more than 3 million shells and mines, 40000 rockets, big quantity of other military equipment.
>In 1942 Leningrad industry gave to the Red Army 60 tanks, 692 cannons, more than 1500 mortars, 2692 machine guns, 34936 PPD submachine guns, 620 PPS submachine guns.
>The Leningrad plants produced 38 fighting ships. Special attention was paid to production of ammunition and shells. In 1942 Red Army received 827155 shells of various calibres and 861300 mines for mortars that considerably satisfied needs of the Leningrad front for ammunition.
>In ten months of 1943 Leningrad gave to Red Army 6750 machine guns, 120000 PPS submachine guns of Sudayev. For the same period the industry of the city produced 1900 000 pieces of various ammunition. In November-December 1943 Leningrad factories produced 5210 machine guns, 33603 PPS machine guns, 471400 shells and mines.
>>68689 >supplies that could barely equip one division. Top lel, at this point you're just shitposting
>Still doesn't change the fact that the Wehrmacht could have easily occupied the city. Says you with nothing to back it up. Oh, yeah, I forgot, they were humanitarians and decided not to take the second largest city in the USSR, top fucking lel.
>>68791 >except, hitler was wring. russia wasn't weak. in fact, it was stronger than anyone imagined well yeah, that's what i was talking about in my post, germany was never meant to win ww2, it was impossible, but attacking russia was a better move then waiting for russia to attack germany altough now that i think about it, maybe russians would fail miserably if they were the invaders, so who knows
>>68976 >>Incompetent war production >what They were really bad at standardization and were also woefully inefficient, took like until 1943 to enter total war mode. Germany had a larger industrial base than the USSR yet produced less of literally everything, especially tanks.
>and mind if i remind you the biggest turnout was in 1943 because paulus betrayed hitler, so come on What the fuck are you talking about? Betrayed him how? By not shooting himself? Stalingrad was lost either way.
>they're all small mistakes compared to incompatance of the allied powers
Those small mistakes cost them a war they had every reason to win on paper, so make of that what you will.
>Incompetent war production
Quote from Why the Allies won.
>This widening gap was not a result simply of the possesion of great quantities of manpower and raw materials. In the Soviet case 8 million tons of steel and 90 million tons of coal in 1943 were translated into 48,000 heavy artillery pieces and 24,000 tanks; Germany in the same year turned 30 million tons of steel and 340 million tons of coal into 17,000 tanks and 27,000 heavy guns.
Germany had complete dominance over a continent of 250,000,000 people and still managed to fuck it up with the branches squabbling over resources. When Speer was appointed in 1944 he managed to get their shit together but by then it was too late.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.