decisive battle debate

The Aberdeen report actually had pretty good things to say about the design of the T34 from what I recall. What they were quite critcal of was the execution. Stories of sledges being issued to help the driver change gears are consistent with that.

There's also the question of it being easier to run. The T34 76 had a small turret from what I recall and I'm not sure if any had a turret basket. Both of these could make it harder to use. I'll have to look up the Aberdeen report again soon and see if they had anything to say in this regard.

 

I'm thinking more of German equipment which was notorious for its heavy maintenance requirements. As the war went on, German recovery vehicles also became scarce and so it wasn't unusual to find a German tank abandoned on the field for very minor issues that would have been repairable by the crew on a Soviet or US tank, or on the spot by a repair crew. Issues that with a German tank would require hauling back to a maintenance facility.
That's more of a general impression rather than something I can quote statistics on. If that impression is incorrect, then I stand to be educated.

 

AFAIK the Soviets had a very different repair phililosophy from the Germans, consistent with the centralized approach they prefered in all things, Soviet vehicles were shipped back to factories for rebuilding while the Germans had more advanced field workshops capable of doing most repairs. The T34 was designed with this in mind, it was expected a vehicle would go to a factory for refurbishing after a while if it managed to survive for long.
The "relative serviceability" of vehicles is a hard subject to investigate, the results have as much to do with the availability of spares and of qualified mechanics than with the vehicle itself, so late war Geraman statiscs or 1941 Soviet ones do not telll a true story, the Tiger I required removal of the turret for a lot of maintenace operations, something I never saw done on other vehicles, buit it's it's hard to see if that is part of a pattern, the Pz IV was never considered hard to mantain and while the later models where less reliable due to overweight they would maintain that characteristic.

 

Предлагаю вам сервиса с самыми низкими ценами!

Услуги сообразно Вконтакте
Услуги по Twitter
Услуги сообразно Мой Вселенная
Услуги сообразно YouTube
Услуги по Instagram
Услуги по Одноклассникам
Услуги по Facebook

Особенности сервиса:
+ накопительная система скидок перед 50%
+ весь автоматический сервис - работает круглосуточно
+ заявки выполняются быстро впоследствии заказа
+ online статистика выполнения заказа с возможностью приостановить / возобновить поручение в любой момент
+ позволительно поставить любое эра ожидания промеж накрутками
+ сервис не требует регистрации - дозволено войти помощью wmid
+ автоматическое пополнение счета изза WebMoney, яндекс-деньги, QIWI и СМС
+ дозволительно получить на халяву 10 руб. на тестирование сервиса (см. акции)


Гарантии:
Сервис имеет билет продавца WebMoney.
Сервис имеет профессиональный счет в Яндекс.Деньги

Ссылка: http://smoservice.ru/?ref=d1now

 

Could the Battle of Kursk be considered a decisive battle?

 

In a conflict among so irreconcilable opponents, there is no such thing as the decisive battle. It was either the Entsieg or the Unconditional Surrender. There was only a sequence of battles that incapacitated one opponent or another to the point of the final collapse.

Somewhere I have seen a graphical presentation of German losses during the course of the war. The graph was almost linear except for some slight inflections at the points of “decisive” battles.

In this sense only the Battle of Berlin qualifies for the “Decisive Battle”.

Mis Dos Pesos, mis amigos!

 

In 1943,Germany lost 1.7 million men in the east,of wgich 57000 at Citadelle .Thus,Kursk was something almost insignifiant .

 

That's a good example how "decisive" were individual battles.

Now, just look at the attached graph showing German losses at the Ostfront from 1941-1944. Do you see any differences at points of "Decisive Battles"? In fact, Germans were bleeding to death almost at constant rate - until they were incapacitated.

(Source: Rüdiger Overmans - Menschenverluste der Wehrmacht an der „Ostfront“)
View attachment 21205

 

Could someone please tell me where the T-34 was manufactured? I am a novice here and just learning to get my feet wet. Thanks

 

It would be interesting to see a comparative chart showing Soviet losses.

I can't remember where I got this info, I believe it was pulled from the AxisHistory website. What's noticeable is the large number of MIA January 1943, and July / August '44 (Stalingrad, then the aftermath of Bagration).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApI6mChPPdxcdHpPdFRTUFVtdDRSWlhBQ0IxTHA1cnc&usp=drive_web#gid=1

 

my 2p. It depends on how you define "decisive" There was no single single battle that resulted resulted in the loser throwing in the towel and ending of the war - like ,say Austerlitz, Waterloo, and Sadowa/ Konigraatz. These were decisive because the results of the battles eroded the will of political leaders and populations to fight on. .

WW2 was asymmetric. The Germans had a temporary advantage through their doctrine and training that enabled them to win quick victories over under prepared opposition which were collectively much stronger economically. . The Nazi party had a grip over the hearts and minds of the Germans that meant there would be no rapid morale collapse as there was in 1918.

Possibly only the germans could win a "decisive battle" in WW2" There were battles on the Eastern front which determined that the Germans could not win with a "Blitzkrieg." Mos cow 1941, Stallingrad 1942 and Kursk were all decisive Soviet defensive victories that showed that the Blitzkreiog could not succeed that year. Ultimately Berlin was the decisive battle. ..

 

Indeed, it would be useful to see that chart too but I guess these data are either incomplete or secret.
Statistics, however, doesn't tell the whole truth. Even though the German losses at Kursk weren't that alarming in a quantitative way, the best units of hardened and experienced soldiers have been virtually obliterated in that short but intense battle. With the remaining units the Germans could have just prolonged the end. In that sense, the battle of Kursk was one of the most decisive events at the Ostfront.

 

Not every one is convinced of the seriousness of Overmans .

1941 (1/2) year : German losses : 830000 /Soviet losses ::4.16 million (combat losses)

1942:Germany :1.1 million /SU:6.58 million

1943: Germany : 1.7 million /SU 6.88 million

1944:Germany : 2 million /SU:5.68 million

19454 months) :Germany ?? /SU: 2.64


Source : Soviet losses in the Great Patriotic War,published on the old AHF Factbook,(the published figures were afterwards converted in combat losses by a member of the AHF)

:WWII stats .com

 

Gotta watch out for those Overman's

 

Indeed casualties are not IMO a particularly good way of defining a "decisive battle". One could perhaps point to battles such as the Battle for Moscow or the Battle of the Atlantic as being decisive as German victories in them were pretty much required for Germany to win the war.

 

The issue being, Germany needed to win multiple decisive battles against a series of opponents in order to win.

They needed victory over Poland: That was successful thanks to their Pal, good old Joe.
They needed victory in Norway; nearly lost that one, but...
They needed victory in the lowlands of Belgium and the Netherlands. France somehow managed to lose as well. Nothing like losing in style.
They needed victory in the Atlantic to press the UK , but that wasn't quite possible because...
They needed victory over the Soviet Union but before the USSR, ...
They needed victory over Yugoslavia and Greece, now, back to the USSR....
Oh Yes, they also needed victory in North Africa.

SO how would you feel after achieving the first three and the sixth, stalemating the fourth, only to collapse 1766 km from Berlin....less than 50 kms from Moscow.

It's enough to make you want to marry your mistress then give her a pill, and shoot your dog.

 

Well if they had the other 6 (ir is it 9 counting France, Belgium, Greece, Yougoslavia, and the Netherlands as seperate) I'm not sure that they really needed a victory in North Africa. Of course they likely would have needed one over the US after Dec of 41. Pretty good summary though. A victory in the Atlantic if it came early enough might have seperated the war into multiple parts or not. Still they fell at least a couple short of what they needed. Whether or not one wants to call those decisive is a matter of semantics I guess.

 

"Decisive battles" are decisive because they affect the will to fight of one or both opponents, looking from that perspective in WW2 the Sicily landings and the bombing of Japan qualify, (and the Battle of Britain and Pearl Harbor in reverse). The personality of the axis leaders and the allied "unconditional surrender" policy made the chance of a decisive military success slim, it gave Hitler and Mussolini a very strong motivation to keep on fighting when any "normal" leader would call it quits, and the US refusal to give guarantees about the emperor possibly prolonged the war for a few months.

 

Even serious historians have not yet reached a consensus about the significance of Kursk as a decisive battle (Newton S. H., “Kursk, The German View”, Da Capo Press, pp. 407). However, it is possible to identify significant threshold points in important elements of capability of Germany to wage a war:

1. Deterioration of the Wehrmacht’s’ strength at the Eastern front
2. Loss of the Luftwaffe’s air supremacy due to significant losses in the Mediterranean and at the East
3. Significant achievements in naval warfare and intelligence that stopped the U-boats at the Atlantic
4. Weakening of German industry through bombing and blockade

All these qualitative/quantitative changes have occurred more or less during 1943.

The last indeed “decisive battle” was the Battle of France where the French have decided to collapse after a single blow they have received in Belgium. That was indeed an embarrassing event. The battle of Berlin can be qualified as a play-off.

 

It all depends on the definition of "decisive battle",which,IMHO,is

a) a battle which had a decisive impact on the outcome of a campaign b ) a battle which had a decisive impact on the outcome of the war




"b" does not exist,and, I am even not sure that there are exemples of "a"..

Was Fall Gelb a decisive battle, was the breakthrough at Sedan decisive (for the outcome of the campaign in the west)?