On the contrary, that played a huge rôle. Those units down to 50% of their strenght hadn't lost their men precisely because of malaria...

And partisans were ver poorly organised in 1941. They didn't play a significant part in the failure of 'Barbarossa'. [/QB]</font>[/quote]General,
I agree 100% partisans did not play a major role of barbarossa collapse...They only really began to be a thorne in Germany's side in 42' Also I was being sarcastic when I said " Russian resilience played a minor role"

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

[quote]Originally posted by General der Infanterie Friedrich H:
'Barbarossa' is a very good example: there were too many operational plans, one was indeed developed by lieutenant general Friedrich Paulus, other by lieutenant general Erich Marcks and there were others. The OKH never actually decided for just one: they kind of made a collage of them all and left OKW to decide what the war-winning strategy and overall strategic goals were. As Miguel said, there was not 'what' and no 'how' after Minsk fell.

Starting like that and with the typical German disregard and incompetence for logistics and intelligence, how on Earth could they plan a successful military campaign of the magnitude which was 'Barbarossa'?

If they're acting on a bigger strategic plan frame, then it's OK. If they're not, then it is fatal. Just like in Verdun: Von Falkenhayn forgot to tell his field commanders that his objective was to kill as many French as possible. Then, his generals, acting with independce, killed as many of his own men conquering useless ground...
END OF QUOTE

I 100% agree on this General, while maintaining that if USSR had turned out to be as weak as German HQ thought, I'm not sure the lack of a bigger strategic plan frame in itself would have caused the failure of Barbarossa

Another point you bring above in the thread is the time factor (lenght of the campaing -&gt;increasing chaos if logistics is required)

We often see logistics as a supplies+distance+transport equation, but It's very interesting to consider the strain of maintaining a fine logistics overtime (you know when the trucks, you use to supply your worn out trucks with gas and spare parts, start wearing out themselves ) I've never thought of this before

__________________
http://www.costnet.com/images/skyhawk-pic.jpg

sorry I fumbled [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
http://www.costnet.com/images/skyhawk-pic.jpg

And don't forget what simple, sheer, disorganization will do to any logistics. Things will simply stop functioning when your trucks don't come back on time from wherever you sent them, when drivers get lost, when the receiving unit has moved elsewhere, when there is nobody to unload, when the front truck just dies and the rest stop...

Please, please don't ask me how I know!

__________________

This is Russian Federal highway Moscow city - Yakutsk City, named “Lena”, nowadays.

The road doesn’t have asfalt surface, though it is a Federal, vital highway.

Everytime it rains the road gets paralized, these shots are made a few days before the traffic jam for 600 cars got stuck there. Hunger and lack of the fuel followed, according to the witnesses. One woman gave a born to a child right in the public bus she was riding.

Construction team afraids to appear on site because during their previous visit it was beaten by people who stuck in the jam for a few days. People breaking the locks on the trucks, in a search of food and warm cloths.

Fuel, food, firearms and steel tow-line are the things that are needed most these days on this Federal highway

Who in his bloody right mind would invade a country with roads like this?

__________________

Thanks for the photo za

When Hitler invaded Russia, he found out that roads that looked impressive on maps turned out to be just mere dust roads or were only in the planning stages.
And the people beat up the construction team?? I see why there were so many Russian guerrillas during WWII.


by the way, why are some people half naked in the picture?? is that a Russian custom? no offense.

Thank god for all the natural resources and weapons that Russia sells! now it can get enough money to buil this road

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

By Ironcross

by the way, why are some people half naked in the picture?? is that a Russian custom? no offense.

Proves your American mate. Fancy the uproar when the missus was nursing our oldest boy.

At any rate. The thread touches on the vital issue on Barbarossa. Flawed outdated strategic thinking by the Germans.

The organisation in the British army made the units larger, but better equipped in the respect of logistics. A fact many modern writers ignore...?

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

What if they simply they don't want to ruin their clothes with the muck...

__________________

Just reading on the German attack to Murmansk. Know why the attack got into real big trouble in the beginning? The roads were not there...

I can imagine someone sending a message to Hitler saying " Unfortunately cannot advance because there are no mentioned roads anywhere..."

__________________

Yes right, just like an exponential growth of chaos as time passes : on day 1, a small delay of a few transports, will bring tomorrow a bigger delay of more transports, and so on...

really I've always perceived the logisitics issue as being "constant" ((while of course depending on what happends on the front), never thought that, if it's not perfect, it will likely turn into a growing and incredible mess.

thanks to you and General for this

__________________
http://www.costnet.com/images/skyhawk-pic.jpg

If Hitler was lucid in mind and allowed Heers Gruppen Mittel to go after Moscow and indeed captured the city then the Soviet economic-military-political-communication-transportation centre is effectively destroyed, their is no other city in the Soviet Union capable of taking over as a secondary capitol with the same infrastructure, the first thing is the disintergration of the Stavka to effectively run the Soviet Military, Communications would break down, economy would collapse.

Also one thing that after gaining Moscow and Gorki on the River Volga, Hitler had planned to halt this would have spreaf southward towards Stalingrad and to Astrakhan thus isolating any Soviet military in the Caucasus and the Germans could effectively take their time in securing the Maykop oilfields and then press onto the Baku oilfields, eventually securing the whole Caspian-Aral Sea area depriving the Soviets of the their oilfields.

Regards

Russia failed to collapse when Napolean took Moscow. What makes you think that things would have been different if Hitler had done the same??

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

It never ceases to amaze me how even the most advanced nations can be held hostage by nature. The U.S. does have a good highway system, but I have been to areas that at times defy all attempts at travel. Of course, even the best roads are worthless in an Oklahoma ice storm.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

The interesting thing is that in the first place Stalin decided to stay in Moscow. If he really stayed there until the end then the Germans by capturing Moscow could get Stalin arrested , well, rather I believe dead as he´d commit suicide but that would end the USSR leadership, I think. And then would follow chaos and collapse of the Red Army.

__________________

I always wondered what the reaction would have been to those on the front line if they heard that Stalin had left Moscow.

__________________
Man of the Year 1942

Regards, Richard

Yes Chaos might very well have occured with Stalin's death......But what do you think might have happend to the resistance??

Belarus lost everything. Millions of people, capital, leaders, military, but hundreds of thousands of residents ran and hid into the forests where they would reeve havoc on the invaders, with large success.

Even if Stalin was to be killed, would the generals have given up the fight? or more importantly would have the people given up??
After all more then half of the country was still far away from the occupying force.

This is a great " what if " topic

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Possibly, but you write as if you were describing a picnic. A.G. North was unable to take Leningrad during or after a long siege, Stalingrad we already know about even if assaulted by the strongest grouping in the Axis + Allies armed forces at the time. Are we sure that with Ukrainian digression or not, A.G. Centre would be physically able to take Moscow?

__________________

The railsystem alone makes Napoleons campaign entirely different, as does aircraft.

Unfortunately Sloniksp forgets that, also in Napoleons time Moscow burned during his occupation of the city as it was a deliberate act of sabotage. Moscow could have been captured and secured and a final push onto Gorky as well thus securing the entire River Volga but one person is to blame for the failure of Operation Barbarossa and that was Adolf Hitler, nothing more or less.