Push the Red Army back against the sea

Um dont think so. maybe for the whole war, but not just 43-44. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

By December 1941,the Soviet commanders stabilized the Leningrad Front, The Northwestern Front, Kalinin Front, The Western Front, The Soutwestern Front and Southern Front and even launched their own counter offensives.

Not to mention that this was all accomplished by an Army which was in a transitional phase.

This statement is just silly. All of the victory's accomplished by the Germans in the opening months of Barbarossa were also done so with a superior force. Not to mention 1 million axis allies which helped them invade an unsuspecting enemy at it most vulnerable state. Also by sept. 1943 the Red Army was inflicting more casualties on the Germans and its allies then it was sustaining.

The battle of Dnieper would be a nice starting point for you

By 1943, the Germans lost most of their veteran troops which participated in Barbarossa. The troops replacing them did not have the same experience. This was Germany's problem from the beginning as in the first 6 months Germany suffered over 1 million casualties while at the same time was unable to replenish all of the looses. For this reason the experienced troops were dying out, this was not the case with the Red Army.

While more were produced in 1943 and 1944 not all were on the Eastern Front. Also they were not alwyas availabe in the numbers needed when the Red Army went on the offensive. Operation Bagration is an example.

As for your 32,613 tanks. Over 25,000 of them were Panzer II,III,38's and IV's.... and were just as absolete by this time as the Soviet BT-7's and T-26's when the Germans invaded.

Well your statement above would contradict that fact that Manstein, was so optimistic of Germany's success in the East that he marched his men into combat lacking the knowledge of the Soviet T-34 the Katyusha or Mig 3.

Actually the point im trying to make here is that it was not upto Manstein but the German intelligence and reconnaissance to supply the General with the correct information. As a result, calling him stupid for lacking the proper information which was presented to him, might come off as a little shallow

As brilliant as Manstein was, he was afterall just a man and also made mistakes as all other commanders of the war have ( just less then most )

With all of that said, I cant picture Manstein being able to stop the onslaught of the Red Army, only stall it.

 

By mid 1943 Germany had something like 125 divisions serving in Italy, Balkans, France and other countries, the problem Germany was not in a position to rob Peter to pay Paul, Germany was overstretched at it was and that is without Operation Overlord, by this stage Germany was now looking at forming many stomach divisions, blocking division, volks-grenadier division, static divisions, and had at least 150+ paper division (at best some troops allocations but mostly administative), Hitler and the Werhmacht were by the end of 1943 was scraping the bottom of the barrel, even the much vaunted Waffen SS was accepting third and fourth rate troops into the fold.

No Kursk was the final death knell for Germany, and if Manstein had launched his so called offensive in the south and wasting probably half a million in casualties Germany would have surrendered at least twelve month earlier, the Soviets would have smashed through and be in Berlin before Operation Overlord, The Soviets would certainly have captured all of Germany and most probably the top half of Italy.

 

When I add up the numbers I get 5965 tanks in 43, 7910 tanks in 44 making the tank production for 43 & 44 13875. If you add in Assult Guns and seld propelled artillery then you end up with around 30000 for those two years.

What stabilized the lines, the Russians, the German offensives haveing run their course, the weather or a mix of all of them?

What transition?

Gah, rhetoric. It doesnt matter which side the dead man was on his experiance went with it, so when either side lost a man that side lost unreplaceable experiance. The Russians did not gain experiance any faster than the Germans did. (Generaly)

Anything is possible.

Sure they were, they could do whate ever they pleased they just cant change the results of such decisions.

I think the point was that Kursk didnt happen. And no. Even after Kursk the victorious Russians took till 45 to reach Germany. This was more a problem of logistics and time than the Germans stopping them. Not to say that there wasnt fighting but that the Russians possesed the might to win the war as long as supplies and plans were available and feasable.

 

The point that I was trying to make is that these fronts were stabilized temporarily enough to give the Red Army time to breath. Just as the German lines were stabilized in 1943 before Russian offeses began again.

The Red Army was getting new armaments, new supplies and equipment, training new officers to replace the ones lost in the Purges of 37 and 38. Zhukov and Vatutin ( I believe ) wanted to replace the absolete Red Army tactics of slow massive rifle and tank armies into more lighter and mobile forces. The offensives were also going through transitions such as attacking only with Armor and Air support and more emphasis made on the flanks rather then head on. Zhukov even singed an order strickly forbidding frontal assaults on the enemy in October 41'

Unfortunately for Stalin ( who was anticipating of the war later ) this did not occur. The Red Army was forced to go through these changes while being invaded.

Rhetoric, why? If the German experienced troops were dying out and were not being replaced on a timely basis and with the needed amounts of men, then the recruits too would fall victim as they would not have time to get the experience... This was not he case with the Red Army which was not only able to replace the men but at the same time GROW, thus while having huge casualties still saving more and more men which would receive the experience. Veteran troops from Stalingrad which participated in the street to street fighting in the Berlin are examples.

 

Stalin preferred creating new divisions rather than reinforcing old ones, the exception being Guards divisions. The Germans actually did the same thing, and wasted a lot of newbie manpower in such divisions as Goering's Luftwaffe divisionen. The Red Army grew in experience, but mostly in the higher up commands. Generally, divisions were used to such an extent that they were merely hollow shells of themselves when they pulled out of frontline combat. Advances and availability of radio technology, reliable equipment, and a better General Staff is what really made the Soviets better over time. IMO, they had a high-morale, but under-equipped army early in the war.

 

Now this agree more with

As for morale, even this was low until they tasted victory ( as would be the case with any army )