How did it get this bad? Considering the reds had. More airplanes. More artillery. More and better tanks

How did it get this bad? Considering the reds had
More airplanes
More artillery
More and better tanks
More mechanized and better armed infantry
?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    multiple factors in no particular order
    >combat experience
    troops/leaders who have seen actual active battles will always be better than those who haven't, all the training in the world, while useful, is never going to amount to the actual thing
    >officer purge
    the ussr killed many of their most competent military commanders, especially ones who could have mounted a decent defense like Tukhachevsky, by the time of the invasion their leaders consisted solely of people who were loyal to the country, it wasn't skill based it was based on their ability to perform rimjobs
    >supply situation
    the ussr was still desolate as frick, germany was sending supplies from berlin to konigsberg which had some of the best infrastructure in the world and was a relatively short trip, the ussr was sending supplies from moscow to the pinsk marshes which obviously wasn't
    >technological quality
    the ussr were using biplanes and in most cases tanks from shortly after ww1, the germans were the latest designs influenced from the necessity of actual combat situations

    but all of that is just cope, really it was because the ussr were commie untermensch

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      most of their airplanes, artillery and tanks were actually not of a higher quality, were inoperable or ill maintained, spread far and wide

      the soviets didn't know what to expect, they were genuinely surprised by the magnitude of the German invasion. it was the largest invasion and probably the largest and most destructive single war ever fought in human history.

      the Germans did actually outnumber the soviets at the front and through capturing POWs did maintain that advantage until winter. those numbers are deceiving. the Germans had way more than 3,8 million men and the soviet troops at the front numbered maybe two and a half.

      in winter the Germans had not just overstretched their supply but exhausted it in material, in fuel and spare parts. their industry was also exhausted because around 5 million young men who were previously employed in factories were now mobilized and their industry suffered.
      so not only could their industry not supply it, their industry with mobilized troops was weaker than the industry which prepared barbarossa.

      the Germans were also tactically superior, the officer corps still outmatched Americans and Soviets until the end of the war, and not just with their breakthrough and encirclement one trick pony which the soviets already countered in 1942. the Germans could do more with less, that they came as far as they did is a miracle and that they lost was inevitable if not for a far greater miracle.
      their whole strategy of defeating the soviets in 3-4 months was terrible but what they did to achieve this impossible goal was nothing short of genius in its ingenuity and resilience.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it was the largest invasion and probably the largest and most destructive single war ever fought in human history.
        other than every single chinese war

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Barbarossa was the largest land invasion to this day

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Surprisinly for such a paranoid man, Stalin didn’t really prepare for the possibility of invasion even though he was warned about the possibility, which made the early defense efforts hasty and chaotic. Combine that with shitty officer corps with garbage-tier combined arms doctrine, and that’s what you get. Of course, Red Army got insanely better on officer and doctrine front during the war, but the very start of Barbarossa was still utter fumbling around because they really didn’t take the lessons of Winter War to heart.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Stalin didn’t really prepare for the possibility of invasion even though he was warned about the possibility,
      Didnt he order all conscripted to do an extra two years,adding 2 million to the ready available forces?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        The anon is wrong. Stalin did prepare for war, he just didnt prepare as he should have.

        Generals like Tukhachevsky emphasized on a deep layerd defensive line where the Soviet army would conduct a fighting withdraw and absorb the enemy invasion, only to conduct a pincer counter-offensive when the enemy has thrusted deep enough in order to encircle and destroy the invasion force.
        This is exactly what Mainstein did in the third battle of Kharkov for which he is most famous for.
        Tukhachevsky was executed for this because Stalin considered it treason to give up an inch of Soviet ground. It wasnt politically correct.
        The Soviet doctrine according to Stalin emphasized on the immedate counter-attacking the enemy invasion, and take the fight to enemy terrtiory which would initiate a communist revolution in its wake. When the Germans invaded, the very first thing Stalin ordered was a massive counter-attacked. He was basically acting on established protocols that were out-of-touch with the reality of the situation, and it led to the most catastrophic Soviet casualties of the war.
        This was a time when Stalin, who had a poor judgement on military matters (he essentially screwed up the Polish campaign for Trotsky) but had absolute control of the military and all its plannings.
        This is why all Soviet forces were moved from the Stalin Line, to the new Molotov Line directly at the German border.
        Stalin also speeded up the construction of the Molotov Line as intel of possible German invasion was being recieved.

        So again, the idea that the Soviets were just dumb and passive, is nothing but a myth parroted by people who dont have an understanding of the topic.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shit I never knew they got that close to Moscow. Stalin really fricked up his officers.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not just about the lack of experienced officers.

      The Soviet military at the start of World War 2 wasnt a military in its traditional sense, it was a political party branch.

      To name a few things:
      1. The USSR had abolished all its mechanized divisions prior to the war.
      2. The USSR had abandoned its proven doctrines emphasized by the likes of Tukhachevsky for more "politically correct" doctrines
      3. Officers were forbidden from taking the initiative and must wait for orders from a distant, centralized command who is completely detached from the reality of the situation.
      This was a major reason why so many divisons were encircled and destroyed.
      4. Rank had been abolished,and soldiers were allowed to challenge their commanders, to create a more "politically correct" military structure.
      5. Low faith and low morale often caused panic and breakdown of dicipline, and remember, this is when they are fighting the Wehrmacht who are at their absolute peak of their trust and morale after France.

      These are just a few points to give you an idea.

      Surprisinly for such a paranoid man, Stalin didn’t really prepare for the possibility of invasion even though he was warned about the possibility, which made the early defense efforts hasty and chaotic. Combine that with shitty officer corps with garbage-tier combined arms doctrine, and that’s what you get. Of course, Red Army got insanely better on officer and doctrine front during the war, but the very start of Barbarossa was still utter fumbling around because they really didn’t take the lessons of Winter War to heart.

      >because they really didn’t take the lessons of Winter War to heart.

      It was the opposite, and it also explains why Stalin ignored all the warnings other than 'le stupid'.
      It was during Finland that the Soviets realized what they had created. I dont know why people on this board have some sort of determent idea that Russians are morons, they arent. They understood completely that something needs to be done, especially after seeing how the German forces wrecked France.

      The Soviet military immediately began massive reforms after Finland to self-correct, the problem was prudency, because at the end of the day, the report will end up on Stalins desk, and inevitably admit that Stalin was to blame for these necessary reforms. This was something no general wanted to shoulder for obvious reasons. When threat of invasion loomed, Stalin knew the Red Army reforms needed more time or they wont stand a chance.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >4. Rank had been abolished,and soldiers were allowed to challenge their commanders, to create a more "politically correct" military structure.
        Don't know anything about this. Are you sure you're not confusing it with cultural revolution era China?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          They had it for a while but started phasing it out during the winter war at the latest

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Semi off-topic, but have any of you guys ever read Degrelle's memoirs?
    He unironically goes with the 'Japan should have just thrown everything they had into attacking Vladivostok so we could reach berlin' Alt-His, And then basically shits on them throwing the war by not doing that and attacking America instead.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Never trust the adult twink

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Japans attack on the USA was pretty stupid yeah

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Probably would have been better for Japan in the long run. Pearl Harbor was a disaster and failed in its objective and gave America the green light to eventually nuke japan twice after fire bombing it already into an island of ash.

      Taking over eastern Russia would have secured their mainland holdings and be easy pickings.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Germany builds a European military coalition
    >at the start of the operation, The German lead Axis army is about equal in numbers to the Soviet military
    >Germany gains the upper hand in a surprise attack
    >Soviets are still a pariah state at this point and basically alone
    >Germany fails to take Leningrad, fails to take moscow, fails to take Stalingrad and the entire operation doesnt even come half way of reaching its objective in the A-A line
    This will always amaze me how they fricked it up this bad. Germany had every possible advantage imaginable going into it and it was a complete and utter disaster.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      USSR had lend lease to bail them out, and later in both the British and Americans attacked Germany in the west

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >USSR had lend lease to bail them out

        No they didnt.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes they did

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sjukov was fired after he publicly said that the army at stalingrad would have starved without western trucks and foodstuffs.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>at the start of the operation, The German lead Axis army is about equal in numbers to the Soviet military
      Even your own numbers not including every other advantage the soviets had makes it look disadvantageous for the germans since you need a 2:1 advantage to successfully go on offensives

      And "Europe wide coalition" with fricking italy and some balkan shitters, lol

      Japans attack on the USA was pretty stupid yeah

      So was the german attack on Russia but both countries had walked themselves into corners at this time with no other way out besides backing out (not an option).

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were caught unprepared and lost all of the advantages you listed when Stalin ordered the Red Army to counterattack even though they had no idea what the frick was going on

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Crossing the Dnipro is so moronic, lol. It's an OP barrier which would've allowed the Germans to consolidate what they have.

    They should've gone all-in on Moscow and cut off the head of the snake; pushing Stalin and his communist fricks back to Samara like the steppeBlack folk they are.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >create massive bulge in the frontline that's prone to encirclement
      >capture moscow and reds don't surrender
      >wonder what this actually achieved

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >losing your most important city is no biggie
        Definitely one of the most reddit takes on Operation Barbarossa.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          the same shit happened to napoleon though, it's a well known russian meta

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not the guy you're arguing with but WW2 is different because all railroads led to and from Moscow. It would be much more difficult to have to reroute everything through some place with much worse infrastructure and not as many connections like, say, Kazan.

            Thinking the USSR would fall with Moscow because they're ants in a hive is bullshit, but the actual logistical necessity of Moscow in how the Soviet military operated needs addressing.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It would've been a big deal, no doubt. Didn't say it wouldn't be. The loss of the central railway hub is the obvious point here.

          But had they launched it earlier, they would've created a massive bulge that would've required an absurd amount of men and have massive logistical issues as well as making the entire central army prone to encirclement.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >let's take one city at the cost of the whole front
          moron.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well first up, through pushing to Moscow, you encourage Finland and Baltic States to break free of the Soviets, gain future territory, and in return - secure the left flank.
        Down south you had nothing similar.
        However, more importantly, you get a clear line to break the US supply line which kept them going. Murmansk and Archangelsk are far more important than Stalingrad.
        With the northeast being dealt with, you can then work on sieging Moscow and cutting off the central hub of practically ALL their rail network.
        Moscow is far easier to attack, as there's no hueg Volga fricking your shit up. You also bring the fight directly to the head of the government, who - at one point - will be forced to retreat, unlike Volgograd, where Stalin doesn't give a frick about the casualties, as it's an abstract tile on the map.

        One year on, you have a better chance of:
        >Fracturing the Soviet leadership
        >Moving the head of the Soviets eastward
        >Cutting off their US support
        >Causing huge pain to their overall rail logistics
        >Having St Petersburg under control
        >Turning the Baltic in Nazi Lake for ezpz logistics; supplying the Moscow effort from StP.

        Germany had no skin in the south, they were overexposed down there with no real allies, and far too close to the British empire. They should've leveraged potential allies, transport routes, and key logistic hubs in the North and came downwards.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >However, more importantly, you get a clear line to break the US supply line which kept them going. Murmansk and Archangelsk are far more important than Stalingrad.
          Didn't most Allied lend-lease come through Vladivostok and Persia?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            About a 1/5 came to northeastern Russia. This would've been supplying the capital. Cut this off, and you can potentially bleed Moscow easily, and use Finnish/Baltic allies to keep order.

            5/10 came through Vladivostok, which requires the Trans-Siberian to transport to European Russia. Back then, the Soviets had a star network of rail, so Kazan would've been the further they could've transported stuff by rail if you're surrounding Moscow.

            Stalin's plan to retreat to Samara, plus the above, and the other bulk supplies coming from Persia, effectively draws the Soviet line of supply at the Volga and Caspian Sea.

            Attacking Stalingrad is fricking moronic, as you allow reinforcements and supplies to come down from Moscow (which is fed by the US via Arctic and Vladivostok), up from the Caucuses, and from the Caspian. You also have no allies near you whatsoever, or no rail lines to your industrial heartland.

            Take Moscow, and you own the north, you own the Baltic, you own the head of the Volga, you own the rail network, and you own the heartland of the idea of Russia (Muscovy). If we assume the Soviets fall back behind the Volga, you've also bought yourself the perfect defensive line.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >5/10 came through Vladivostok, which requires the
            Japanese not sinking american cargo ships

            Strange

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Past 1942 Japan had no naval ability left.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Absolutely
            Especially Persia. The germans fricked up royally by building useless ships like the Bismark and Liepzig instead of focusing on their submarine force. But it was all part of the NS spouting their chest out by saying "look what we can build" instead of looking at it from a practical perspective.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          This has got to be the dumbest shit I've read in a long time.
          Your entire autistic 'scenario' relies on Germany having infinite resources and zero time pressure.

          >you encourage Finland and Baltic States to break free of the Soviets,
          You neither understand Finlands nor Germanys intentions.

          >you get a clear line to break the US supply line which kept them going
          It's just going to be moved further back.

          >Murmansk and Archangelsk are far more important than Stalingrad.
          According to who?

          >you can then work on sieging Moscow and cutting off the central hub of practically ALL their rail network.
          And why exactly wouldnt they just reroute transportation? The railway isnt only going through Moscow you moron.

          >Moscow is far easier to attack, as there's no hueg Volga fricking your shit up
          Correction: Moscow is far easier to defend and counter-attack as there is no huge Volga 'fricking your shit up'.

          Also, you dont seem to understand what made the inititial strike of Case Blue so successful.

          >Germany had no skin in the south
          Let me ask you something that will basically destroy your whole victory scenario; What does Germany gain from capturing Moscow.
          Nevermind what the Soviets lose, what does Germany gain?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Germany had no skin in the south
            This is where the whole thing falls apart. Hitler was obsessed with natural oil which is why he wanted Crete instead of Malta to protect Romania. At one moment he wanted to kill the soviet army, then he wanted big cities, then he wanted strategic resources. The german army pulled way above their weight but it just wasn't made for attrition and a command who flip flopped in what they wanted.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They where surprise attacked by their own ally, I guess they weren't on a defensive posture because the border was shared with their ally. Hins had numerical superiority on the eve of Barbarossa anyhow.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >muh Tukhachevsky
    Pseuds

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation#Impact_of_purges

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *