How the Germans almost won the war

228
How the Germans almost won the war


The battles of that very great and bloody war have died down long ago. Long ago she became history. Few of its members survive to this day. Pyramids of books have been written about it and thousands of films have been made. Of course, all peoples who fought have different views on those events. The Japanese and the Americans look at the Pacific campaign very differently. The same can be said about the Germans and the French. This happens after every war, and there is nothing surprising here. But there is one absolutely special front. As you may have guessed, this is the Eastern Front.



With all disagreements, landing in Normandy, Sicily, etc. pretty well described on both sides of the conflict and creates an acceptable three-dimensional image. But not the Eastern Front. Here something incredible begins to happen. I will make one (absolutely politically incorrect) remark: in the event of non-aggression on the USSR, the German troops could still stand in Prague and Paris to this day. Who would knock them out? Anglo Americans? Mussolini? The non-aggression pact gave guarantees to both parties. This is usually forgotten. And now 41 is a year, all of Europe is under Hitler, and he makes a decision ... And now let's imagine that he made a different decision: not to fight in the East. Just imagine for a minute. Yes, the legendary Rezun buzzed his ears to everyone that July 6 ... But this, as we know, is a myth and propaganda. Now imagine that there was no war in the East.

Today’s world would be very different from the one we live in. For the Germans, of course, for the better. No, the Japanese, for example, were indeed driven into a corner, they had no options left, and they delivered a desperate blow. But Hitler's situation was completely different. Without a front in the East, he could fight back and out in the West for a long time without risking anything. Without the Eastern Front, he could not have lost the war in principle. So it goes. This is pretty obvious. You can discuss the details of this version of history, but not the result: Germany controls continental Europe. No options. Atomic bomb? Germany is also actively pursuing such developments, and in the absence of a catastrophe of the Eastern Front, which devoured all the resources of the Reich, these developments would go faster.

Going "perpendicularly" to the respected popularizer of the secret history of the world Rezun, I still assume that the reason for the attack is not the fear of "Day M" and not adventurism, as other researchers think. The reason is different: for Germany it was a “colonial war”. Yes, just so no matter how offensive it sounds to us. German headquarters, in principle, did not see Russia as a worthy opponent. By the way, before the First World War in Berlin, about the same mood reigned. And here is the invincible Wehrmacht, which has no enemies on the continent, and there is a "barbarian kingdom" in the East. This was not an adventure, in any case, it was no more an adventure than the capture of Algeria by the French. Yes, there was no doubt and throwing. They just thought it would be easy.

The answer was - like the capture of Rome by the Gauls in due time (suddenly!). Imagine that in response to the French colonization of North Africa, the Berbers take Paris by storm. Here is something like. The same frank nonsense. This option is simply no one pawned. In no case should Hitler and his generals be regarded as a bunch of adventurers and madmen. From the very beginning, they simply did not view the war in the East as something that could decide the fate of Germany in a negative way. All the other explanations of why Germany joined this disastrous campaign for themselves, look extremely unconvincing. The risk / reward ratio is too unattractive.

Hitler was not a superhumanly brave hero. His generals did not differ by reckless optimism. But they put Russia and the Red Army very low ... Those memories of the doubts and fears of 22 June are explained not just by a fantastically correct prediction of future catastrophes, but simply by the serious concern of professionals before the start of a super-large army, unprepared for such tasks by the army. For some reason, we judge the Germans on our own (quite erroneously!), And therefore we draw very strange conclusions. German generals, officers and soldiers did not think about the "long term." The German military experts were seriously worried about their own army - not fired and had no de facto experience of large-scale military operations, and the experience of large maneuvers was limited: from the 1918 to the 1933, the German army had no actual ...

And such a situation before a decisive leap to the East did not inspire them with optimism. It is our custom to brightly paint the Nazi hordes, "armed to the teeth with the most modern weapons“, The reality was far from being so pretentious: the Germans were afraid not so much of the strength of the Red Army, as of (quite professionally!) Their own unpreparedness for a big war. Germany prepared for the First World War much longer and in much more favorable conditions. “From scratch” to create a super-powerful army for six years in a country that is starving and falling apart at the beginning of a long journey is impossible theoretically. Yes, of course, Hitler was seriously “helped”, but miracles do not happen.

It is enough to study the frankly scandalous situation with the equipment of the Wehrmacht tanks (“Heavy duty” Pz-I, Pz-II), as many things become clear, with the Luftwaffe by 1939, everything was by no means as pathos as they like to show in propaganda films. You want to say that the Pz-I with the support of the Yu-87 is a mega-weapon? Are you serious? Here they are actively “dancing on the contrary”: since Hitler achieved such outstanding “successes” and destroyed so many people, then there was a “super army” behind him, supposedly it is clear that all Hitler’s crimes would not have been possible without some “powerful army”. So, it was just the crimes he committed throughout Europe and not only (like all Germans), but there was no “super-army” behind him. Everything was "sewn on a living thread." Just do not watch the Nazi film propaganda in the morning, and you will be happy.

If Hitler really had such a structure in June 1941, the war in the East could have ended a little differently. But, despite all the gross mistakes of the Soviet military leadership in 1941-42 (see “Hot Summer 1941-42”), the Wehrmacht was not as good as propagandists like to paint it. Moreover, the Wehrmacht "poorly and slowly studied": in the summer of 1942, the Red Army was already fundamentally different than in the summer of 1941. This was not enough to start winning, but the gap in the quality of organization of the troops was sharply reduced (for some reason all historians first of all pay attention to the quality and quantity of equipment, but the main thing in any army officer corps) ... and the Germans of this did not notice. Wehrmacht-1942 did not make a qualitative breakthrough with respect to the Wehrmacht-1941 (why do you need reinforcements, Hannibal, if you still win?).

In principle, the talk that "our forces are incalculable" gives frank naivety: under Hitler there was practically the whole of continental Europe with its industry and agriculture. Due to the large number of rich, developed countries in the occupied countries, the percentage of men conscription in Germany was abovethan in the USSR. And the number of ethnic Germans in Europe was close to the number of ethnic Russians (Belarusians) in the USSR. "Innumerable forces"? What are you talking about? Who? Serious help on Lend-Lease went after Stalingrad (the Anglo-Saxon helps the one who helps himself). Seriously bombing Germany began in the same year 1943 ... And before that? And before that, our Anglo-Saxon partners were still waiting for something ...

The position of the USSR in the summer of 1941 was tragic: the army was crushed, food problems begin, in the fall the Germans near Moscow, Leningrad is blocked, and the country is starving ... But in Germany everything is fine in the summer of 1941, and in the summer of 1942, everything was not bad ... Germans eat their fill, civil industry produces much more for purely civil (non-military!) needs. We don’t want to understand the “asymmetry” of that war in the Soviet and German perceptions ... For them, the “pain and tragedy” began much later, closer to 1944-th year (and were more likely connected with “carpet bombing”), and in the summer of 1941-th everything was fine with them. The death and suffering of millions of Soviet citizens for them no problem was made up. And even in the summer of 1942 in Germany, there was no “catastrophe” on the horizon: the war in the East is almost colonial in nature, and there is no reason to speak of “serious casualties”.

But Stalingrad became just a “watershed” for Germany, and absolutely sudden. This is the first major defeat of the Wehrmacht by the Red Army. By the time the war was actually pure for a year and a half, the two summer campaigns of the USSR lost outright ... And only by the very end of 1942, the Red Army conducted a large, successful offensive operation on the encirclement. For the first time, Karl! Finished the early maturing field marshal already in general in 1943! That is, in fact, the 1941-42 campaign in the East can be considered as having no precedent in the history of mankind and almost completely won by the Wehrmacht! The enemy was standing on the Volga! In her lower flow! And in the late autumn of 1942 on the account of the Red Army there was not a single large successful offensive operation with the encirclement and capture of large forces of enemy troops.

I do not understand the whole post-war bragging of Soviet historians: they say, we showed this mustache to the fascist, where the crayfish spend the winter! In November and early December, 1942 was very sad for the USSR: the army was not capable of attacking, the people were starving, tens of millions of Soviet citizens "under Hitler." Here, instead of analyzing, it is customary to indulge in a “patriotic hysterics” and begin to sing “loudly military songs” loudly and emotionally, in unison so much. Not worth it. Already not worth it - "get drunk full." In a certain sense, the sincere surprise of the Germans about the lost war and the storming of the Reichstag is quite understandable: they won not several "random", "early" victories, no, coming to Stalingrad, they practically "drove the Russians into the Asian steppes" (according to one science fiction alternatively).

Those who like to look at the huge map of the USSR and its supposedly small part occupied by the “fascist hordes” somehow kindly forget that then (as now) most of the population of Russia / USSR lived in its European part. In the giant tundra, where individual regions “equaled three France,” neither plants, nor factories, nor vineyards were observed. And there was practically no population. Then the "asymmetry" was even more serious than at the end of Soviet power. That is, if we do not consider “the whole map”, but only its “mastered” part, then the occupation looks much worse. And yes, the South Caucasus in the summer of 1942 was practically cut off from the main territory, and there were cases of panic and mass desertion of conscripts.

Well, tell me, what are these "innumerable reserves" hiding behind Stalingrad? Ural region, which before the war was much less developed than later? And a rare chain of Siberian cities? Against all of Europe? What kind of tales about the "innumerable reserves"? In reality, the country stood on the edge of the abyss, on its very, very edge. Or did someone expect to break the Wehrmacht in Tobolsk? In the Kazakh steppes, dashing blow of the masses of irregular cavalry?

These "combat stories of our invincibility" made sense in the course of of war. The truth is not always timely. Retell military propaganda after war, at least strange, to say the least. Retell this propaganda through 70 years after WWII? What for? Intellectual crisis? Fear of terrible truth? So everything has already happened. What to fear?

In fact, the war itself is very clearly divided into two completely different "wars" - and just "in Stalingrad." Between the fighting of the summer of 1942-th and 1943-th (even in the same "locations") very little in common. For example, to stop the operation "Citadel" the Red Army of the model of the summer of 1942-th would hardly have been able even in the most favorable conditions. But the Germans "too long" fought with her, and she quickly learned. Not for nothing that the Spartans had a simple rule: do not fight too often with the same opponent, so as not to teach him military affairs. The trouble of the Germans was just that; they didn’t take this war in the East too “seriously” before Stalingrad. Up to the fact that near Stalingrad / in the North Caucasus they already had a legion, almost intended for India (!). And then it was too late. The Red Army "suddenly" went on the offensive (which no one expected from it any longer), American and British bombs rained down on German cities ...

Here we have to laugh at the fact that in the fall of 1942 the German "was ready to go to India," it was customary to make fun of the "stupidity of Hitler's generals," but, excuse me, they reached one of latest large industrial hubs available to Stalin, and no one could stop them. And Stalingrad is very in the depths of the country. No, the Volga in its upper course is one thing (although it is also far from the outskirts), in the lower one ... Well, why not plan a “trip to India” after that? Who will stop them? From Kharkov, they in one throw reached the Caucasus. And the “doom” of the Third Reich in the autumn of 1942 was nowhere to be seen anywhere. Even in the telescope ...

This is exactly what the Germans are unhappy with: they remember very well how they practically won the war in the East (for some reason they did not read Soviet propaganda). And then everything went downhill.
228 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +21
    20 June 2018 05: 36
    "There is no ruble, there is no ax, the ruble must. And everything seems to be correct"
    These are the thoughts after reading the article.
    ... And everything seems to be correct .... nda.
    Interestingly, were there partisans in Germany?
    More and more articles like this in the media. To what?
    But what would happen if Stalin and Hitler decided to create an empire? Well, despite all sorts of graters.
    Well, we’ll agree ....
    Author! The winners write the story, and your article is an attempt to whitewash the vanquished.
    I won’t be surprised if in a few years there will be articles proving the benefits of concentration camps and gas chambers.
    Where is the planet heading?
    1. +7
      20 June 2018 08: 16
      Interestingly, were there partisans in Germany?


      there are scattered forests there — not Bryansk
      But there were underground workers, though not for long.
      Simply, all the sensible Germans at the time of the occupation had a nehily opportunity to go to the front.
      old men and children were conquering ...
      What are partisans?
      1. +1
        20 June 2018 09: 44
        Ecilop (Alexey): More and more in the media like articles. To what? Author! Winners write the story

        Who are you, Author?
        1. 0
          22 June 2018 22: 06
          The author, another "terter of an eternal theme" with a trimming of his theses. It is correctly said that mountains of books were written, only they lay down in layers, according to the dominant of existing politics, both in the USSR and in the Western world. In response, he will receive a bunch of the same “thumbs” with corrections rooted in opponents, according to the time of obtaining knowledge. Conclusions: the winners write the story, and if the winners are structurally changed, the “story” also changes. There are places on the Internet where they play the game options for an alternative story, lovers of this pity there, as well as the author of the article. And at the close: even two women will not get along in the bank, it's about Hitler and Stalin ...
      2. +3
        20 June 2018 18: 48
        Quote: Olezhek
        What are partisans?

        like these ones
    2. +10
      20 June 2018 19: 22
      Quote: Ecilop
      "There is no ruble, there is no ax, the ruble must. And everything seems to be correct"


      In general, the author is right that 41-42 and 43-44 are two different armies and military companies.
      The comments did not find a clear answer to this question. request
      In the fall of 42 of the year, only 55% of the population remained at the disposal of the USSR.
      ---------------------
      In a word ... I think that it’s unproductive to search for complete answers without Belief in God .. .. without understanding .. that, according to the single word of the Lord God, the state of the armies is decisively changing ... and both.
      If you search for answers only in human solutions, then there will be no complete answers.
    3. AUL
      +4
      21 June 2018 11: 46
      Author! The winners write the story, and your article is an attempt to whitewash the vanquished.
      Do you have any SPECIFIC objections to the facts given in the article? Bring them please! So far, only emotions on your part. By the way, quite understandable. It’s unpleasant to understand that at the beginning of the war we didn’t know how to fight, the huge number of victims and prisoners is proof of this. And then the Germans themselves taught us to fight. Taught hard and bloody - but taught. Evidence of this is our flag over the Reichstag!
      Sub Partisans in Germany were - Werewolf called. There were, however, a very short time - they were transferred quickly.
  2. +10
    20 June 2018 06: 01
    the Germans simply did not know that there were a couple of kilometers beyond Moscow, and then the Urals ...
    and yes, almost won
    1. +15
      20 June 2018 07: 48
      Look at the population density map and you will be happy ...
      And “kilometers” as well as “Ural-type mountains” do not fight on their own
      1. +4
        20 June 2018 18: 49
        Quote: Olezhek
        Look at the population density map and you will be happy ...

        Europeans are not able to talk about one thing with Russian distances, I say as a resident of the Kaliningrad region
        1. +13
          20 June 2018 22: 06
          Quote: Olezhek
          Look at the population density map and you will be happy ...
          And “kilometers” as well as “mountains like the Urals” do not fight by themselves .... Or did someone expect to defeat the Wehrmacht in Tobolsk? In the Kazakh steppes, the dashing blow of the masses of irregular cavalry?
          This "someone" has a name --- this is the General Headquarters of the Red Army. He organized 7 construction departments outside Moscow, which erected defensive lines. Gorky or Kuybyshevsky bypass, Vladimir border. For a counterattack near Moscow, reserve armies advanced from these areas and had to leave the already prepared bands in case of defeat and loss of the capital. The seriousness of all these engineering measures is indicated by the fact that Millions of mobilized civilians took part, and work to improve the defense, for example, in the Moscow Defense Zone was stopped only in the autumn of '43. In the Zones east of Moscow, work was stopped a little earlier. they were preparing to meet that field, and not only cavalry, but reserves were being prepared. New technology, new charters. The General Staff quickly and creatively adapted to the harsh reality. And yes, the General Staff was about to retreat, but not to run, much less raise their hands. And these are two big differences. Guderian would wedge in Bashkiria --- it would be there too waiting for "surprises" which he drank a full bowl near Moscow.
          The notes of disappointment and the realization of a fatal error slip from the first month of operations on the Eastern Front in Halder's diaries. The German was strong, but doomed to defeat.
          The main guarantee of the success of the Wehrmacht was the bet on conducting transient operations. And we began to play “in the long run” and without losing the will to resist. And the vast distances also helped us a lot.
          1. +5
            21 June 2018 07: 08
            Or did someone expect to break the Wehrmacht in Tobolsk? In the Kazakh steppes, dashing blow of the masses of irregular cavalry?


            This “someone” has a name --- this is the General Headquarters of the Red Army. Who organized the 7 construction departments behind Moscow,


            1 And ​​the farther we go to the east, the less industry and the smaller the population.
            The bulk of the USSR population lived in the European part of the country ...
            who will make the weapon?
            who will fight?
            To make such mistakes "infinite defense to Vladivostok" is permissible to a foreigner or a fan of computer games.

            2 Gene headquarters could plan anything after the fall of Moscow
            But the surroundings of Leningrad and the fall of Moscow itself could have provoked the folding of the USSR, but as a house of cards.
            Psychology has not been canceled yet.

            Both domestically and internationally, the fall of Moscow (Leningrad is surrounded!) Could be interpreted as a defeat for the USSR. With the corresponding consequences.

            3 A gene headquarters could build defensive lines right up to Yakutsk ...
            1. +4
              22 June 2018 18: 49
              Quote: Olezhek
              And the further we move east, the less industry and the smaller the population.
              The bulk of the USSR population lived in the European part of the country ...
              who will make the weapon?
              who will fight?
              To make such mistakes "infinite defense to Vladivostok" is permissible to a foreigner or a fan of computer games.

              Olezhek, my friend, it feels like you are not familiar with the fulfilled evacuation plan. I am a hereditary simple Samaritan on one side and a hereditary Polish nobleman who was released on June 28, 41st from the NKVD prison. Before that, he passed as an accomplice in an open Polish The German gang and all the chiefs, its scientific and production leaders (clever and Soviet patriots, as he told me) shot everyone who bent under the beatings with a stool in the face, he and another engineer from the bandit group didn’t sign anything. to establish production, he was in his incomplete 30 years, with his teeth broken, one of all his senior executives was shot landed in Kuibyshev and began to organize a foundry of mines from the zero cycle. Cars with mines left for the front on time, but this grandfather was engaged with me always, and now I came from school and he fried my eggs. I chewed, and the words of his scientific insult until now are with me --- you know what he said then, that the depth of scientific knowledge and production experience of his bosses executed was much higher than his abilities. I say this ...? I don’t know ....)))), but I think that by magnifying the totem of Dzhugashvili we overshadow the possibilities with which our Army could meet the enemy in the 41st or even deflect a blow. Just think, they shot my grandfather’s supervisor, and how much benefit he could bring, because grandfather honestly admitted that he was only an imitator of the breakthrough ideas of senior engineers.
            2. 0
              22 June 2018 19: 05
              Quote: Olezhek
              General Staff could plan anything after the fall of Moscow
              But the surroundings of Leningrad and the fall of Moscow itself could have provoked the folding of the USSR, but as a house of cards.

              I couldn’t, but military-scientific planned this situation and accordingly prepared for it paying due attention to the engineering preparation of positions beyond Moscow, the second channel was mastering the combat reserves. Industry, Lendik and the people gave the result ---- after the Battle of Stalingrad, all this together could to give the Red Army full-fledged TAs of a new standard. And the word, by the way, is more formidable, mechanized ---- and why did this word sound? An hour struck, now with an alarm of a thousand guns we began to crush the enemy, arrange him strategically s environment.
              And I thank you for the article, even if I disagree in some way, but it stirs up thinking, arguing, communicating with the word, and not like in other statues == one slogan.)))
            3. 0
              22 June 2018 20: 10
              Quote: Olezhek
              2 Gene headquarters could plan anything after the fall of Moscow
              But the surroundings of Leningrad and the fall of Moscow itself could have provoked the folding of the USSR, but as a house of cards.
              Psychology has not been canceled yet.
              Both domestically and internationally, the fall of Moscow (Leningrad is surrounded!) Could be interpreted as a defeat for the USSR. With the corresponding consequences.
              3 A gene headquarters could build defensive lines right up to Yakutsk ...
              Psychology has not been canceled .... the whole essence of psychology arr. 42nd year in order 227 --- honestly and easily ... die or take additional measures to resist .. Sorry ... I deeply did not understand the meaning of your article-- - I was discouraged by the details, so I criticized them ... but I realized that we were talking about some kind of alternative plane of military events and orders (like "taking Leningrad" U). There’s no reason to talk about such scenarios, because. ... what the hell can you prove .... I have a lot of documents, but they do not fit into your script. Therefore, write of course, write sharply and interestingly, but everything is somewhere ikuda.
            4. +1
              23 June 2018 04: 55
              I recommend reading Isaev, and see the movie.

              This is for starters.
          2. 0
            21 June 2018 07: 10
            The General Staff promptly and creatively adjusted to the harsh reality. And yes, the General Staff intended to retreat, but not to run, or even more so to raise his hands.


            You reassured me ... no, if creative, then yes!
            1. 0
              22 June 2018 18: 56
              Not I, reassure you, set aside personal, Signor
              There is a spear point and the target is brilliant --- tomato! Discard the mournful manners, in order to survive it is given to you, only send direct "birds"!
      2. +2
        20 June 2018 21: 05
        Quote: Olezhek
        Look at the population density map and you will be happy ...
        And “kilometers” as well as “Ural-type mountains” do not fight on their own


        look at the length of communication, and you too will be happy.

        victory over the enemy is the sum of many factors.
        "population density" is not fighting either. who said that if the Germans went east of Moscow, then Soviet soldiers would not have moved to new frontiers?
        1. +1
          21 June 2018 07: 16
          look at the length of communication, and you too will be happy.


          You can talk for a long time about the terrible Russian roads and the length of communications, but the Wehrmacht fought at Stalingrad (1180 km from the border of Chisinau!) and fought successfully! as in the North Caucasus.
          In the autumn of the 1941, the Wehrmacht had certain chances to take Moscow. And actively fought on the approaches to it ...
          roads, the length of communications ...

          It was good to talk about this in the defense of Kiev, but not Tsaritsyn ... who is already very deep in the country ...

          I look at the length of German communications and I see the Wehrmacht, which in the summer of 1942, cuts the Transcaucasus from central Russia and comes out wide ... almost to the Caspian Sea
          Short communications for some reason do not help the Red Army almost ...
          1. +2
            21 June 2018 16: 31
            Quote: Olezhek
            but the Wehrmacht fought near Stalingrad (1180 km from the border Chisinau!) and fought successfully!

            that is, the Germans approached Stalingrad, arranged a mediocre and disastrous siege there (I suspect they didn’t read tsun dze)
            then they fought the battle, the army of Ernst Paulus was defeated and captured, the freshly baked field marshal surrendered without batting an eye.

            do you call it successfully ?!

            cannot be more successful.
            1. 0
              22 June 2018 20: 29
              Quote: Olezhek
              In the autumn of the 1941, the Wehrmacht had certain chances to take Moscow. And actively fought on the approaches to it ...

              Not only to her, but he developed his offensive in all 3 strategic directions, and then he planned the advance of his victorious tank groups in only one strategic direction, because the rest of the lanes were in all hands either turned out to be shackled by the Red Army or deeply cut off, which they started in the 43rd when the tank armies rushed to the so-called Vost.Val, but nothing could stop them? .... Why? Remember the principle of backyard fighting, the same laws apply in geo-wars. Wehrmacht and “SS” strained to ensure their order on such extensive communications — rezult, Soviet tank armies along the front and the whole USSR which did not flinch with muscle, but only outplayed them- --Tanks in Kharkov were collected --- it doesn’t matter, now they are traveling from the Urals to bome tankovuh brigades of the new sample.
  3. +25
    20 June 2018 06: 04
    Maybe it is so ..... BUT .... I always have about this, the only question arises, why not the "chances" in 1941 in Moscow, but ours in 1945 in Berlin? Enough already, if, but how? Our grandfathers won, we take this fact for granted. So it was, is, and will be ...
    1. +7
      20 June 2018 06: 14
      Quote: Shiva83483
      Our grandfathers won


      This is undeniable!

      And if they want to challenge it, we ask for favors.

      Who is to us with a sword ....
      1. +5
        20 June 2018 07: 40
        Hitler considered the USSR "Spike on clay feet", and therefore climbed into the fray. And on 22 on June 1941, the Germans realized that they would lose this company!
        1. +12
          20 June 2018 07: 45
          А 22 1941 June years, the Germans realized that they would lose this company!


          Why did it happen???

          Even in the summer of 1942, this was by no means obvious.
          1. +9
            20 June 2018 07: 48
            One defense of the Brest Fortress showed the Germans that this was not a walk through Europe, but a bloody battle with a strong and stubborn enemy. As it turned out later ...
            1. +14
              20 June 2018 10: 18
              One defense of the Brest Fortress showed the Germans that this was not a walk through Europe, but a bloody battle with a strong and stubborn opponent


              A powerful argument in the political discussion with young fighters ....
              1. +11
                20 June 2018 12: 27
                The defenders of the Brest Fortress and the Border Guards died, but did not give up without any political conversations. They performed their Soldier duty and defended their homeland. Not just now, you’ll hand over everything and everyone for chewing gum and iPhone!
              2. +8
                20 June 2018 14: 00
                Quote: Olezhek
                in a political conversation


                Oleg, listen to Uncle.

                Quote from Uncle Lee
                Uncle Lee (Vladimir)


                hi

                in April 1941 Germany conquered the territory of Greece and Yugoslavia (Germany occupied Norway in 63 days, France in 44, Poland in 35, Belgium in 19, Holland in 5, Denmark in 1 day)

                and here they "crash" into the Brest Fortress ...

                Here (in Brest) they understood, but in Stalingrad they became convinced.

                The counter argument is, at what cost? .. Human life is priceless. They came to us! This is neither we collective farm barns with the kids burned.

                Lossless? Without loss it is in Europe. 63 .., 44 .., 35 .., 19, etc. DAYS! Then they got crematoria and gas showers.

                Yes, and then. It's better to talk about it. To have a lively conversation. Not on the Internet.

                My advice to you is a young fighter. Ask friends, acquaintances. Maybe someone else knows someone who survived the blockade ... Ask an eyewitness ...

                And hurry up. They are every year, month ... Less, less ...

                Honor and glory to those who fell for justice.

                Oleg hi
                1. +8
                  20 June 2018 14: 58
                  Eternal memory and eternal glory to those who died in Brest. But Brest remained deep in the rear of the Wehrmacht and did not play any role in its advance to the east.
                  1. +2
                    20 June 2018 18: 18
                    Eternal memory and eternal glory to those who died in Brest. But Brest remained deep in the rear of the Wehrmacht and did not play any role in its advance to the east.
                    Well, actually it’s a symbol of courage and heroism and you can guess an easy walk along the Brest
                    1. +4
                      20 June 2018 20: 42
                      and did not play any role in its promotion to the east.


                      strategically - no
                      tactically - yes

                      Brest created problems, but, of course, not global ones.
                      1. +1
                        21 June 2018 23: 05
                        Brest is Hitler’s first failure. to capture this fortress had to leave significant forces in the rear and for a long time. But these forces were not enough at the front, so they had to put reserves in their place, or stretch the front between other units. All this was in the hands of the SA, as it allowed to retreat with less loss. So for every dead soldier in Brest, there were several dozen saved lives at the front. Brest was not in vain
          2. +6
            20 June 2018 11: 36
            Quote: Olezhek
            Even in the summer of 1942, this was by no means obvious.

            For army men - it is possible. But in the fall of 1941, Yalmar Schacht realized that everything was impossible to win the war for the Reich. However, by December 1941, books on the Napoleonic campaign in Russia also became popular with army men near Moscow. smile
            And then it was only worse:
            - The state debt of the Third Reich as of May 1942 is about one hundred and fifty billion marks, that is, at least a third of all money in circulation.
            - The foreign exchange reserves of the Reichsbank are practically at zero.
            - State bills issued for twenty-five billion, and they are not provided with anything.
            - The administrative apparatus has increased sixfold compared to 1934.
            - Shortage of skilled labor - more than a quarter of the needs.
            © gunter-spb
            1. +1
              20 June 2018 20: 41
              The state debt of the Third Reich as of May 1942 of the year is about one hundred and fifty billion marks, that is, no less than one third of all money in circulation.
              - The foreign exchange reserves of the Reichsbank are practically at zero.


              But in Russia, the people for May 1942-th "just" starve ...
              By the way, cannibalism took place not only in besieged Leningrad ...

              his managerial staff has increased ...
              So it became what (and by whom!) Manage!
              1. Alf
                +3
                20 June 2018 21: 25
                Quote: Olezhek
                his managerial staff has increased ...
                So it became what (and by whom!) Manage!

                In modern Russia, the managerial apparatus is also growing, but the population, especially the working one, is declining. Paradox?
              2. 0
                21 June 2018 09: 59
                Quote: Olezhek
                But in Russia, the people for May 1942-th "just" starve ...

                So in the Reich, too, hunger and regular reduction of norms. Actually, the main thing that the Germans wanted from the USSR was grain.
                In particular, from the USSR, in any situation and any mood of the local population, it is expected to receive 2.5 million tons of grain, which the USSR promised Germany from the 1941 harvest and which are already included in the Reich's food balance (without them in any way), 3 million tons of grain per army food (if you drag it from the Reich, there is not enough rail capacity) and about 2 million tons more for Germany’s obligations to Romania, Hungary and others. Total approximately 8 million tons of grain.
                © D. Shein
                Quote: Olezhek
                his managerial staff has increased ...
                So it became what (and by whom!) Manage!

                No. Official Hans just didn’t really want to be on the Eastern Front. In the memoirs of Helmut Waelz, these officials are described very well:
                The seats on the train are occupied by generals, officers of the General Staff, SS Fuhrer and all kinds of "Sonderfuhrer", Nazi party nobles, commissaries, military judges and other officials of all ranks and shades. Yes, gentlemen live well in the rear. Only occasionally you will notice a lone front-line officer - he either returns after reporting to the command, or he, like me, was lucky enough to find a way to quickly get home on his short vacation.
                The next morning I feel like a newborn. Finally got enough sleep! Together with a neighbor we go to a restaurant car. Suddenly a voice stops me:
                “Why don't you salute?”
                I turn around. At the door of the compartment is a young man with a haughty face. Noticing the general's trousers, I almost snapped his heels. But then he made out a bluish-blue collar of a uniform and white buttonholes with oak general branches. Honest mother, which only does not happen in the world: the "Sonderfuhrer" in the rank of general! True, one of those who go to count the harvest.
        2. +2
          20 June 2018 17: 35
          Quote from Uncle Lee
          Hitler considered the USSR "Spike on clay feet", and therefore climbed into the fray. And on 22 on June 1941, the Germans realized that they would lose this company!

          Well, on 22 of June they still didn't understand anything. But the only thing right in the article is this
          Quote from Uncle Lee
          for Germany it was a "colonial war."

          Nifiga Germans did not think about clay feet, they simply had no choice. Yes, they crushed Europe under themselves. And they turned out to be the owners of thousands of enterprises in the manufacturing industry. Somehow the author is not interested. And that’s the whole point - Europe brought millions and millions tons of raw materials from all over the world, which it plundered from the colonies. But how would the Reich handle it?
          Given that England and America would desperately resist its sea transportation, and on land the Anglo-Saxons would exert all their strength, and not just “bear the hardships and hardships”, reducing the supply of wine to regular customers? So in a natural and effective way to get huge reserves of all the raw materials that the Anglo-Saxons could not seriously hinder to get, this was the capture of Russia.
          Yes, Hitler underestimated us. But the Anglo-Saxons really appreciated, and therefore drove us a Lend-Lease mountains. But underestimation never fell to the values ​​described in the article. The author simply does not understand what war is. No matter how limited and frankly stupid you are, the bullet that really threatens you is a great teacher, just the greatest.
          The Germans strained everything, absolutely all the forces that they only had. We just turned out to be stronger. Stronger, smarter, better in almost the entire military confrontation. That's all ...
          1. 0
            20 June 2018 20: 39
            But the Anglo-Saxons really estimated, and therefore drove us to the Lend-Lease by the mountains.

            Mountains with tops ...
            Right from June 1941 ...
            1. 0
              21 June 2018 13: 13
              Is this the answer to my comment? Strong...
    2. 0
      20 June 2018 07: 52
      we take this fact for granted. So it was, is, and will be ...


      Unfortunately, the author has a non-humanitarian, non-political and non-religious education.
  4. +3
    20 June 2018 06: 11
    Author? And you are not the case of the young Japanese who assure you that Inola Guy Tibbits from the USSR arrived?

    Go far. But not for long.
    1. +1
      22 June 2018 09: 47
      Quote: Vanek
      Inola Guy Tibbits from the USSR


      Enola Guy (and reads "e / e") Tibbets (Enola Gay Tibbets)
      1. +1
        22 June 2018 15: 57
        I know who she is.

        She made the one who brought her there so that she would kill ... And if we take into account the fact that radiation sickness still appears on ... Young Japanese ... She still kills.

        Notice. The one who brought her there himself is no longer ...

        And someone is talking about a nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

        Haaaaaa ...
  5. +12
    20 June 2018 06: 25
    Germany fought almost the whole world twice in the 20th century. And she almost won twice. But something was not enough for the Germans. And in both cases, a bummer occurred in the East. Both in 1914 and in 1941. As for the fact that the Germans could win everything is written in order 227. You just need to read it.
    And of course, we must admit that in 1941 not only Germans, but no one in the world believed that the USSR would survive. Even in 1942, few believed. Churchill certainly did not believe.
    1. +4
      20 June 2018 07: 32
      The whole of German history from the first days was built from expansion to the East. At first they baptized and assimilated the Western Slavs, then they switched to the Eastern Slavs, but were discarded by the Russian state. Their whole story is based on the concept of Barbarossa "Drang nach Osten". Even now in the 21st century, they have not left this scenario and continue their expansion. Only by economic and political instruments
      1. 0
        20 June 2018 07: 33
        You can say this is their national idea
        1. +3
          20 June 2018 09: 31
          Well, there are different opinions about the outbreak of war ... For example, there are those who believe that Hitler really wanted to end England first and was seriously planning an invasion, but the ill-fated Winter Soviet-Finnish War forced him to change his plans, as German generals in that war they saw all the weaknesses of the Soviet military machine .... it seems that even the phrase about “a colossus with feet of clay” was born under the impression of that war, which was largely a failure for the USSR ...
          1. +4
            20 June 2018 10: 33
            Quote: Snail N9
            it seems that even the phrase about “a colossus with feet of clay” was born under the impression of the war, which was largely a failure for the USSR ...
            - i.e. after 3 weekly REAL war (when everyone organized CORRECTLY, and not standing as in the first part of the database) to break through the serious defense of the Mannerheim line and be in Vyborg - is it a failure ?? to squeeze out a bunch of territory? To make the Finnish army not risk a year to go with Hitler - but sat modestly at the level of the old border? and Mannerheim vowed to Hitler in love looking faithfully in the eyes - but the Wehrmacht did not let go (what would it be like if the Murmansk railway was cut?) !!!
            well ... failure ...
            1. 0
              20 June 2018 18: 12
              Well, yes, “victory” ... I don’t say anything, it turns out that they fought for only 3 weeks ..... what are the losses there? .... oh yes, they broke through the “deeply echeloned defense" .... I, unlike from many in the field I studied this “defense” ... wink
              1. 0
                21 June 2018 09: 51
                and what? there was nothing there? there were no fortifications? Enkel / Mannerheim- "all the lost / all
                and! "," oligarchidengiukraliunaroda! ". Or was there still something there?
                And it’s mediocre to sit surrounded and do nothing to break through or even trivially strengthen your position with sluggish attempts by the Finns, you can long enough.The first part of the war was stupidly organized and executed, it is a fact.
                But the second half-carried out quite well, all the tasks are completed.
                Or didn’t Hitler let Mannerheim go to Finland out of love for Russia? And did Stalin later also draw Mannerheim out of the list of “boy boys” because of love for Finland?
                And the Finns the whole USSR were in the forefront to receive buns from the USSR?

                Z.Y. and the German General Staff is generally a separate motley, of an action plan for AFTER there is no way to the Astrakhan / Arkhangelsk line in nature. Theoretically, by the end of August, they should have started planning what to do next for the troops. They didn’t bother ...
            2. +1
              21 June 2018 10: 54
              Quote: your1970
              - i.e. after 3 weeks of REAL war (when everyone organized CORRECTLY, rather than standing in the first part of the database) to break through the serious defense of the Mannerheim line and end up in Vyborg is a failure ??

              Failure is not being able to organize an attack so as to break through the Mannerheim line from the first strike. And spend 2 months of the ongoing war on bringing the army to life.
              Failure is to throw a full-blooded rifle division reinforced by a heavy tank brigade into the fortified area with just two modern machine-gun dos. And roll back, having lost almost all tanks in less than a week.
              And so the series of motts north of Ladoga is generally beyond.
              Actually, it was precisely the first 2 months of the Soviet-Finnish war that led some to the idea that all the power of the Red Army was an inflated bubble of parades and ostentatious maneuvers.
              Quote: your1970
              to make so that the Finnish army did not dare to go for a company with Hitler a year later - but sat modestly at the old border?

              Since when did Svir become the "old frontier"? belay And on the Karelian Isthmus, the Finns simply entered the KaUR line, beat for several days in the fortified area, and stood up on the defensive.
              Quote: your1970
              and Mannerheim vowed to Hitler in love looking faithfully in his eyes - but the Wehrmacht did not let go (what would happen for example - if the Murmansk railway was cut?) !!!

              Which Wehrmacht did not let Mannerheim? What are you talking about?
              Finnish troops fought shoulder to shoulder with the Germans. In northern Finland, the Finns were generally subordinated to the Germans: an order was issued on 15.06.41 - a week before the start of the Second World War. Moreover, the Finnish III AK (formerly V AK) handed over to the Germans was supposed to cut the Murmansk railway.
              Operational plan of General Siilasvuo for the III Army Corps. Moving across the border takes place simultaneously in the directions of Vuokkiniemi, Vuonninen, Kiimasjärvi - Suvanto. The next stage is from Vuonninen to Ukhta and from Suvanto to Sokhjan. A strong reserve of the commander after clarification of the situation is sent to the most promising area for further advancement. The final goal formulated by the German command was to go to the Murmansk railway in the area of ​​Louhi and Kemi.
              © Mauno Yokipii
              1. 0
                21 June 2018 13: 08
                1) i.e. Was the German General Staff unable to evaluate the entire course of the database? Assessed in the first part - without paying attention to the second?
                2) on KaUR they went on the defensive - couldn’t they break through or didn’t really want to? "Just went to the KaUR line", knocked on the door, they were sent to the address, they were offended and stood for three years?
                3) you can subordinate anyone to anyone-the question was whether the subordinates listened to the authorities. Judging by the fact that the road was not cut for the war, no, no matter the assigned combat mission.

                Z.Y. "And the dawns here are quiet ..." confirm that there were not serious attempts, moreover, our command deliberately kept here untrained, practically non-combat units, even at the direct guard of the railway ... Right now, tell me, this is a book , there crap .. well, well .. only in fact the entire front line there was stagnant throughout the war
                1. 0
                  21 June 2018 14: 35
                  Quote: your1970
                  1) i.e. Was the German General Staff unable to evaluate the entire course of the database? Assessed in the first part - without paying attention to the second?

                  The German General Staff saw that even if the Soviet Union inflicted a pre-prepared first strike of the Red Army, it would take at least 2 months to become operational.
                  Quote: your1970
                  on the KaUR they went on the defensive - couldn’t they break through or didn’t really want to? "just went to the KaUR line", knocked on the door, they were sent to the address, they were offended and stood for three years?

                  They simply knocked their foreheads in the UR, realized that they had time to re-preserve the DOS, and without heavy artillery and armored vehicles there was nothing to do - and stood up.
                  Quote: your1970
                  you can subordinate anyone to anyone, whether the subordinates of the authorities listened to the question. Judging by the fact that the road was not cut for the war, no, no matter the assigned combat mission.

                  You probably do not know, but on September 9, 1941, the Kirov railway was cut. Just the Finns - in the area of ​​the Svir River.
                  To the north of Ladoga, the Finns in 1941 were stopped with great difficulty.
  6. +6
    20 June 2018 06: 56
    The article is a fat minus. The author is urged to teach history, tactics and strategy so that such pearls
    It suffices to examine the openly scandalous situation with equipping the Wehrmacht with tanks.

    or
    And the “doom” of the Third Reich in the autumn of 1942 was nowhere to be seen. Even through a telescope ...

    do not give out
    1. +6
      20 June 2018 07: 42
      It suffices to examine the openly scandalous situation with equipping the Wehrmacht with tanks.


      What did they have with tanks during the defeat of Poland? France? What was the tank composition in the attack on the USSR?
      What is this Pz-I, Pz-II? What kind of tanks?
      Really - the Soviet tanks were much more, well, in general, they were better.
      You can not learn the history of WWII - just see the historical foty German Panzerwaffe
      sample 1939-1941-th ...

      Ask a man from the street: what tanks did the Germans fight?
      The answer will be: tigers and panthers ...

      Who in the mass appeared on the Kursk Bulge ...
      And what happened before that?
      What did Hitler get to Moscow?
      1. BAI
        +8
        20 June 2018 09: 24
        Quote: Olezhek
        there were much more Soviet tanks, and in general they were better.

        If about the initial period of the war:
        1. There are no radio stations - no control in battle.
        2. Visibility is disgusting.
        3. No crew accommodation conditions.
        4. Sighting optics worse than German.
        You can be any strong warrior, but if you tie your hands and put a bag on your head, you don’t have much to do.
        1. +2
          20 June 2018 10: 18
          It’s just that the Germans at the beginning of the war had the best organization with regard to the use of tanks, compared with the organization in the Soviet army at the same time. There is a lot of literature on the subject, and a lot has been written on VO.
        2. +2
          20 June 2018 10: 25
          You can be any strong warrior, but if you tie your hands and put a bag on your head, you don’t have much to do.


          Are you talking about Soviet armored vehicles, model 1941-42?
          Powerfully ...

          ... The criminal Stalinist regime sent the Soviet tank crews into battle in "tightly impaled coffins" ...
          1. +7
            20 June 2018 11: 57
            Quote: Olezhek
            Are you talking about Soviet armored vehicles, model 1941-42?
            Powerfully ...
            ... The criminal Stalinist regime sent the Soviet tank crews into battle in "tightly impaled coffins" ...

            Before scumbaging, you would have read at least reports on the testing of domestic equipment from 1940-1941.
            The lack of visual communication between the tanks when solving the fire problem due to the fact that the only device that allows circular viewing - PT-6 is used only for aiming.
            The inability to use the TOD-6 sight due to the overlapping scale of the aiming angles with the PT-6 device.
            Significant and slowly damping tank oscillations during movement adversely affect the accuracy of firing from guns and machine guns.
            The resulting average practical rate of fire of the 76 mm gun is two rounds per minute. The rate of fire is insufficient ...
            Due to the fact that the 3rd gear, which is most necessary in conditions of military operation, cannot be fully used, the dynamics of the tank as a whole should be considered unsatisfactory.
            Technical speeds are low due to the unreliability of the main clutch and chassis.
            The operation of the main clutch and fan assembly is generally unsatisfactory.
            In the run, there were several cases of “neutral loss” (the link lever is in the neutral position, and the speed is on) and heavy gear shifting were noted on all cars ...
            Wrong choice of gear ratios of the gearbox is the reason for the unsatisfactory dynamics of the tank and reduces its tactical value.
            The ratio of the time of pure movement and restoration work (38% and 62%) indicates a low quality of the technical performance of the tank.
            The volume and complexity of the main repair work exclude the possibility of restoration of the tank by the crew and require the use of means of airborne

            These are the test results of the serial T-34s of the late 1940s.
          2. +5
            20 June 2018 12: 09
            "NILAP report on the topic: Studying the armament of tanks of various armies with optical instruments and developing a rational set of instruments for each type of spacecraft tanks" continues slander and desecrate:
            Inconvenient location of the flywheels of the rotary and lifting mechanisms. When using the flywheel guidance (the right hand on the handle of the flywheel of the rotary mechanism, and the left - on the handle of the flywheel of the lifting mechanism), rapid transfer of fire is difficult.
            The low angular velocity of rotation of the tower does not allow you to constantly keep the target in the field of view of the sight.
            Shooting from the frontal machine gun is completely ineffective, since the radio operator gunner is not able to conduct targeted fire due to the small (about 3 degrees) field of view of the machine gun sight.
            The workplace of the gunner-commander of the tank. Observation through the TMFD-7 sight is complicated by its close placement near the sleeve trap.
            In terms of flexibility and accuracy of fire, the T-34 tank does not differ in positive characteristics, on the contrary:
            1. Unfortunate location of the handwheels of the rotary and lifting mechanisms of the twin installation;
            2. Insufficient speed of rotation of the tower by hand;
            3. Difficulty aligning the crosshairs of the grid with the target;
            4. Insufficient visibility and
            5. Lack of simple and reliable stabilization
            constrains the maneuver of the trajectories and does not provide effective fire on the move

            And then comes the treshka report, in which the authors describe this car exclusively in excellent colors:
            The report on tests of the T-34s tank conducted by the NIP GABTU KA indicates that during comparative tests of the T-34, T-34s and T-III vehicles, the latter showed better results than the first two.
            The main reasons for increasing the rate of fire and accuracy of fire, according to paragraph b) of the report, from the T-III tank are:
            1. Convenient location of handwheels for rotary and lifting mechanisms, providing continuous aiming and observation of the target.
            2. The presence of two speeds of the slewing mechanism provides sufficient angular speed of rotation of the tower.
            3. The presence of an electric trigger and cartridges with an electric primer that act instantly and reduce the time delay of a shot to a minimum.
            4. Convenient location of the 50-mm caliber ammunition for the gun and ease of maintenance by the loader.
            5. The presence of a commander's cupola, which has a sight combined with the direction of the gun, allows the tank commander to check the correct aiming of the gun on a given target ...
            This list should be supplemented with the following items:
            6. The flexibility and accuracy of fire has also increased due to the appropriate placement of observation devices and sights and the rational organization of workplaces.
            Small efforts on the handwheel of the turret swivel mechanism and sufficient angular rotational speeds make it possible to provide a significant increase in firing accuracy and flexibly control the trajectories
          3. +4
            20 June 2018 12: 10
            But maybe the situation has changed further? Alas...
            August 1941:
            The combat operation of the T-34 tanks once again confirms the low quality of the gearboxes. The service life of the boxes is very short. Of the tanks that failed due to the fault of the boxes, not a single one passed 1000 km.
            According to the complaint act of 102 tank division of August 2 s / g for ten days of hostilities out of 15 tanks 7 tanks failed due to breakdowns of gearboxes.
            Such low quality gearboxes does not provide combat for the T-34 tanks. In addition, there are a large number of cases of failure in the operation of the main clutch (due to warping, breakage of the discs and excessive - premature wear of the switching mechanism), destruction of the final drive bearing, and bending of cranks of sloths.
      2. +4
        20 June 2018 09: 32
        What is this Pz-I, Pz-II? What kind of tanks?

        Unfortunately, I am now without sources. But on the Internet you can find a description of the duel T-1 and BT-7. The real battle of the real 1941 year. Guess once, who came out the winner? Despite all the impressive characteristics, the BT-7 left the battle because it lost.
        So who had the tanks better is another question. And .... the riddle of war. The Germans willingly and massively used Czech tanks and not very willingly Soviet captured tanks. Probably, unlike paper TTX, they saw the shortcomings of Soviet tanks better than we can imagine now.
        The T-34 tank of the 1941 model was worse than the German triples and fours. And on the T-34 after 1943, the Germans already had an answer.
        1. +4
          20 June 2018 09: 51
          The T-34 tank of the 1941 model of the year was worse than the German threes and fours.


          Something new ... interesting

          But on the Internet you can find a description of the duel T-1 and BT-7. The real battle of the real 1941 year. Guess from one time, who came out the winner?


          And here already the skill level decides
          But BT-7 and Pz-I are absolutely incomparable by TTX
          1. +1
            20 June 2018 10: 44
            It’s like in a computer game of tanks, in a real battle mode, while you learn to fight in Soviet tanks, then all sorts of small-sized fascists on the T-1, T-2 carry the T-26, BT through the cracks, the machine gun slot, the gun ...
            But when I learned, then T-1, T-2 already sucks.
          2. +2
            20 June 2018 14: 51
            T3 and T4 were tested before the war. Reports have already been given here. But the most interesting is that the T3 showed a higher speed than the T34.
            In addition, some tank commanders opposed the T34 production in the spring of 1941. In particular, Pavlov. Voroshilov insisted on continuing production.
            As for the duel, I can say that BT lost because the observation devices did not meet the conditions of the battle. The BT commander simply could not adjust the fire, leaned out of the tower and was killed. The mechanic got the tank out of the battle because there was nobody to shoot
            1. Alf
              0
              20 June 2018 21: 29
              Quote: Bakht
              In addition, some tank commanders opposed the T34 production in the spring of 1941. In particular, Pavlov.

              And what did he offer in return? T-50?
              1. 0
                20 June 2018 22: 28
                Responsible employees of the department, including its head, Y. N. Fedorenko, who replaced DG Pavlov in May, had a negative attitude towards the T-34. Moreover, GBTU turned to the People's Commissariat of Defense with a proposal to temporarily stop the production of T-34 and continue to produce well-developed BT-7M. D. G. Pavlov and G. I. Kulik also spoke out against the T-34 and proposed putting the T-50 into production. Fortunately, this did not come to this.
          3. 0
            20 June 2018 15: 59
            Zhukov in his memoir called BT-7 obsolete. That's the whole story!
            1. Alf
              0
              21 June 2018 21: 37
              Quote: sxfRipper
              Zhukov in his memoir called BT-7 obsolete. That's the whole story!

              Zhukov himself is a rare storyteller.
        2. 0
          20 June 2018 10: 20
          The T-34 tank of the 1941 model of the year was worse than German threes and fours


          In general, do not waste time: write a convincing article with proof of this thesis.
          and "VO" will shudder ... just like the whole military history science.

          Absolutely surulous! am

          brave thought ...
          1. +3
            20 June 2018 10: 58
            Quote: Olezhek
            In general, do not waste time: write a convincing article with proof of this thesis.
            and "VO" will shudder ... just like the whole military history science.

            Yes, nothing will “startle” there, the T-34 of the outbreak of war ... this is far from a cake, which is generally known.
            1. +1
              20 June 2018 12: 23
              T-34 start of the war ... this is not a cake, which is generally well known.


              And no one is singing songs about mega-weapons. But all the same T-34 was generally better than the Pz-III Pz-IV And it was produced at a much faster pace
              1. 0
                20 June 2018 12: 45
                Quote: Olezhek
                And no one sings songs about mega-weapons. But all alone the T-34 was generally better

                In something better, in something worse. If the quality of production were good, they would definitely be better, and so ...
                Quote: Olezhek
                Pz-III Pz-IV And it was produced at a much faster pace

                Not in 1941 - at the end of the year we released a total of 3 T-131s (including pre-war production), the Germans - 34 T-2s and 842 T-3s overtook in 920
              2. +1
                20 June 2018 12: 46
                Quote: Olezhek
                But all alone, the T-34 was generally better than the Pz-III Pz-IV. And it was produced at a much faster pace.

                “In general” - this is according to the numbers in the TTX tables taken from army TK.
                But in fact ... for example, the serial T-34 spring 1941 release had a fuel range of 165-180 km and an engine with 465-475 hp. He had a checkpoint, which allowed the use of only second gear in battle (no more than 14 km / h), because shifting gears caused the tank to stop or shut off the engine altogether. It had an engine with a resource sufficient only for training the crew to drive. He had efforts on the control levers and handwheels of the tower rotation of 25-30 kg. It had such a “good” visibility that in tests from all standard targets of the battlefield, the crew was able to detect only 2 machine gun nests. And I saw their mechanical driver, who drove a tank with an open hatch.
                In the real battle described by Yents, a pair of three-wheelers and a four managed to knock out five T-34s without loss, and one of them was hit by a three-wheeler during the chase - the Germans were struck that the T-34 crew did not react to a tank chasing them and firing, as if not seeing it.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  20 June 2018 21: 30
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  But in fact ... for example, the serial T-34 spring 1941 release had a power reserve of 165-180 km

                  And the Germans?
                  1. 0
                    21 June 2018 15: 27
                    Quote: Alf
                    And the Germans?

                    And the Germans planned ours. EMNIP, about 210-230 km.
                    It's funny that when ours began to measure the power of the German engine according to the domestic method, the resulting value was somewhere around 10% more than the "German" power.
                    1. Alf
                      0
                      21 June 2018 21: 36
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And the Germans planned ours. EMNIP, about 210-230 km

                      On the highway.
                      for example, the serial T-34 spring 1941 release had a range of 165-180 km in fuel and an engine with 465-475 hp.

                      On the ground, and these are slightly different comparison criteria. On the highway, 300 km.
                      1. 0
                        21 June 2018 23: 28
                        Quote: Alf
                        On the ground, and these are slightly different comparison criteria. On the highway, 300 km.

                        According to Ulanov, in the same conditions, the power reserve of the “three” was a quarter more than that of the T-34.
            2. +1
              20 June 2018 13: 33
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              T-34 start of the war ... this is not a cake, which is generally well known.

              And still superior German tanks, subject to the availability of normal supply. But we had bad transport and air defense. There is even seditious thought to turn half of our tanks into trucks in alternative history, even if in a ratio of 1 to 1. Because it is better to have a battle tank than any number of battle tanks due to lack of ammunition, fuel and spare parts. Take away any component and the tank becomes useless.
          2. 0
            22 June 2018 00: 12
            Quote: Olezhek
            In general, do not waste time: write a convincing article with proof of this thesis.
            and "VO" will shudder ... just like the whole military history science.

            Oh-ho-ho ... according to the real state of affairs with the T-34 before the war and in the first war year, there are not enough books.
            In fact, there are at least two books describing the real pre-war T-34 and the real BTV of the Red Army based on domestic archival documents, and not the tales of Grandfather Epishev:

            According to the difficulty with which the frankly raw T-34 was brought to mind, and which personnel received this latest technology and fought on it:
            Andrey Ulanov, Dmitry Shein. The first T-34. Combat use.

            As of the situation in BTV as a whole, including problems of new technology:
            Andrey Ulanov, Dmitry Shein. Order in the tank troops? Where did the tanks of Stalin.
        3. +2
          20 June 2018 10: 36
          Quote: Bakht
          T-1 and BT-7.
          - I’m embarrassed to ask, how is he machine gun BT hit us? Most likely, BShki ran out of gas and the crew threw it ...
          1. +2
            20 June 2018 14: 53
            it is a machine gun. Ask why KV and T34 so often crushed with caterpillars. Yes, because not a damn thing
            https://history.wikireading.ru/5583
            1. 0
              20 June 2018 16: 14
              Quote: Bakht
              Yes, because not a damn thing

              Not in the subject, but straight on Terkin:
              "Tank - it looks very formidable, but in fact it is deaf and blind
              That is blind. You lie in a ditch, and on your heart you can
              Well, how can you crush it? After all, not a damn thing can see! "
      3. +9
        20 June 2018 10: 56
        Quote: Olezhek
        Really - the Soviet tanks were much more, well, in general, they were better.

        The Germans had tank troops, which were equipped with everything necessary and fully met the tasks that the command set before them. Alas, we had a mechanized corps that did not meet the requirements of modern tank warfare either in organizational structure, in training, or in equipment. Moreover, these same requirements in the Red Army were still not particularly understood.
        But we had better tanks, yes. There is no sense in this. Gather a platoon of those who did not serve in the army, put a university student with a military department at the head, equip the warrior kits with the latest AK-12 or whatever we have, and drop this platoon against the reconnaissance platoon that went through the Chechen war, giving the latter tunics and three-rulers. What will happen?
        1. +1
          20 June 2018 12: 25
          The Germans had tank troops, which were equipped with everything necessary and fully met the tasks that the command set for them. We, alas, had a mechanized corps




          1 Advertising is not necessary, they did not answer all the tasks. mat part doubtful
          2 Organization - yes the Germans had better and use of tanks and tank divisions - more literate
          Who is arguing?
          About this article.
          1. +4
            20 June 2018 12: 35
            Quote: Olezhek
            Advertising is not necessary, they did not meet all tasks.

            They answered 100% and this is not advertising, but a historical fact. Thanks to German tank forces, all of Germany’s largest military victories were won.
            Quote: Olezhek
            mat part dubious

            Yeah. What dubious did you see in German field artillery? Cars? Air defense and vocational training? Infantry weapons? Connection? Rear service? Wherever you go - superiority, in rare cases - equality.
            And only because the T-34 was superior in certain parameters to the T-3 and T-4 (while being inferior to them in others) gives you reason to say that the Germans have dubious equipment laughing
            By the way, I’ll tell you perhaps the only thing in which the Red Army of 1941 obviously and definitely exceeded the Wehrmacht. This is the catering of fighters.
            1. 0
              20 June 2018 20: 26
              Yep What dubious did you see in the German field artillery? Cars? Air Defense and VET? Infantry weapons? Connections? Rear service? Where do not dig - superiority


              This is you in vain ...
              The Germans did not have critical superiority directly in mat. parts.
              In very separate areas such as air defense was
              And with the tanks themselves everything was very sad
              Industrial Germany "medium type" Pz IV less than peasant Russia medium T-34 ...
              at the same time, Germany has all of Europe under it ... and yet ...
              Something did not go with them with the production of tanks ...

              And in Russia they had a lot.
              You could say so: the Germans could not win in the East, because the European industry produced too few tanks.
              1. +2
                20 June 2018 21: 29
                Quote: Olezhek
                The Germans did not have critical superiority directly in the mat. parts.

                It was, Olezhek, as it was. Tell me the Soviet units, in terms of qualities (quality and performance characteristics of equipment, mobility, communication, etc.) equivalent to German TD in 1941
          2. +3
            20 June 2018 12: 57
            Quote: Olezhek
            Advertising is not necessary, they did not meet all tasks. mat part dubious

            The German materiel reached Smolensk without any problems. Ours - showered already at the exit from the points of permanent deployment. However, it is not surprising - if a new tank on a march 2/3 of the time is forced to stand in the repair or troubleshooting.
            What is the use of having 75 mm armor if the engine starts boiling already at 20 km / h, the gearbox gears lose their teeth in motion, and the shafts twist (the suspension and transmission of the HF were designed for 40 tons)? What is the use of rational angles of inclination of the armor, diesel engine and 76-mm gun, if the crew does not see anti-tank vehicles and even enemy tanks and exposes them to the side, the turret must be rotated blindly, the gun does not have armor-piercing shells, and the main friction clutch fails after 200 km?
            1. 0
              20 June 2018 20: 31
              The German materiel reached Smolensk without any problems. Our - fell down already at the exit from the points of permanent deployment


              and nothing unusual — even in the event of a sudden strike on the Germans during the war (in the second half of it), the fucking cloud of German armors was immobilized / thrown / blown up in the rem centers.
              During the war, Karl!

              Tell about the "incredibly reliable" suspension Panther / Tiger?

              Well, at the beginning of the war, all German tanks could be called light ... which dramatically eased the issues with the undercarriage.

              but even in the case of a hypothetical sudden strike, many of them would not have left the parks.
              1. +2
                20 June 2018 21: 31
                Quote: Olezhek
                Tell about the "incredibly reliable" suspension Panther / Tiger?

                No need to tell. You just need to draw the right conclusions - at the beginning of the war, we had "tanks without any analogues in the world" but technically unreliable tanks - and we lost. In the end, the Germans had "no analogues in the world" but technically unreliable tanks - and they lost :)))))
                This, of course, is a terrible simplification, but you could at least think about this "paradox" :))))
        2. 0
          20 June 2018 14: 18
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The Germans had tank troops, which were equipped with everything necessary and fully met the tasks that the command set for them.

          The same PzI and PzII were not used from a good life. And the attempt to organize the supply of the entire mass of tanks led to the fact that the rest of the armed forces did not even have enough horses, not to mention trucks. And still it was not possible to ensure uninterrupted supply of at least gasoline.
          Just the lack is different. Both the Germans and ours at the beginning of the war had to tighten their belts. But ours dreamed of a piece of bread, while the Germans yearned for sausage, eggs and milk. Similarly, with other supplies. It's one thing when the wagon train is behind schedule. Another thing is when it is not at all.
          1. +1
            20 June 2018 14: 36
            Quote: brn521
            The same PzI and PzII were not used from a good life.

            T-1s were practically not used in tank divisions (meaning - before the attack on the USSR), and T-2 was not a bad reconnaissance “iron caput,” in which capacity it was mainly fought.
            Quote: brn521
            And the attempt to organize the supply of the entire mass of tanks led to the fact that the rest of the armed forces did not even have enough horses, not to mention trucks.

            This is not true - the Germans had mobile troops, tank and motorized divisions. And there were infantry troops who did not really need this mobility, and the supply of infantry divisions with vehicles was higher than ours
            Quote: brn521
            But ours dreamed of a piece of bread, while the Germans yearned for sausage, eggs and milk.

            By the way, this is not true - here's why, but in terms of nutrition, we exceeded the Germans by head - our hot food relied on an ongoing basis and, in general, tried to provide
            1. +1
              20 June 2018 17: 14
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              T-1s were practically not used in tank divisions (meaning - before the attack on the USSR), and T-2 was not a bad reconnaissance "iron caput"

              Despite the fact that T-3 and T-4 were needed, the staff of the divisions had to be finished off with T-2 and T-1 tanks. As for reconnaissance, such a hypothetical tank should have good cross and a running resource. The same ones were sent for reconnaissance because they did not find other use for them. Despite the fact that these tanks also needed consumables and maintenance.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              This is not true - the Germans had mobile troops, tank and motorized divisions.

              Which were so detached from the main forces that the offensive, according to the Germans themselves, turned into an adventure. Neither the flanks nor the rear were provided, while the units were stretched beyond measure.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And there were infantry troops who needed this mobility not so much

              The same gunners had claims - the state relied on 2 horses where at least 4 were needed to maintain the pace set by the command.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              By the way, this is not true - here's why, but in terms of nutrition, we exceeded the Germans by head - our hot food relied on an ongoing basis and, in general, tried to provide

              Well, yes, balanda is also kind of like a "hot meal." But she happened to eat parts in reserve or at reorganization. We are talking about the situation as a whole, and not just about what should have been (sort of) getting troops on the front line. According to the results of the initial stage of the war, the USSR was in full ass. Most of the production and stocks remained in the occupied territories and went to the Germans.
              1. 0
                20 June 2018 19: 38
                Quote: brn521
                Despite the fact that T-3 and T-4 were needed, the staff of the divisions had to be finished off with T-2 and T-1 tanks.

                Once again - according to the state of T-1, there was no TD in the TD at all, in fact - maybe a hundred were, but hardly more.
                Quote: brn521
                As for reconnaissance, such a hypothetical tank should have good cross and a running resource. The same ones were sent for reconnaissance because they did not find other use for them.

                Armored reconnaissance vehicles are not hypothetical, there was a great need for them and the T-2 was very successful in this role, which is why Luhs (a specialized reconnaissance tank) was made precisely on its basis.
                Quote: brn521
                Which were so detached from the main forces that the offensive, according to the Germans themselves, turned into an adventure. Neither the flanks nor the rear were provided, while the units were stretched beyond measure.

                This is the meaning of the tank troops - deep raids and enemy coverage :))) It goes without saying that their flanks are unsecured.
                Quote: brn521
                The same gunners had claims - the state relied on 2 horses where at least 4 were needed to maintain the pace set by the command.

                everything happens in war. But they were provided by the state at the beginning of the Second World War (another question is that the losses were not fully compensated), but we haven’t, despite the fact that our staff was smaller
                Quote: brn521
                We are talking about the situation as a whole, and not just about what should have been (sort of) getting troops on the front line.

                There is a fact - for the most part, ours provided troops with hot food, but the Germans did not. They had a whole gastritis division (where they expelled those who ruined the stomach on a dry bed), to recall the number ...
                1. 0
                  21 June 2018 08: 45
                  Once again - according to the state of T-1, there was no TD in the TD at all, in fact - maybe a hundred were, but hardly more.
                  - more than 1,1 thousands of units in the Wehrmacht on 22.06.41. of which 20% is under repair, I agree that some of them were in training parts, but at least 500 pcs. were in the army ... hi
                  1. +1
                    21 June 2018 11: 05
                    Quote: faiver
                    - more than 1,1 thousands of units in the Wehrmacht on 22.06.41. of which 20% is under repair, I agree that some of them were in training parts, but at least 500 pcs. were in the army ...

                    According to Yents, there were 337 “units” in “barbarossa”. Of these, 152 tanks in the front-line units (with the exception of combat engineer battalions, etc.). If we take into account all the units in which there were "units" (including individual tank battalions, sappers and panzeryagery), then their number will increase to 410.
                    The Germans have a very tricky system for calculating armored vehicles - most often the number of tanks taken exclusively from the tank companies of tank battalions is taken as the final figure. And all other cars remain behind the scenes. smile
                    1. 0
                      21 June 2018 11: 25
                      and the few were commander’s vehicles in the units of the shtugs ... hi
                2. 0
                  21 June 2018 11: 15
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Once again - according to the state of T-1, there was no TD in the TD at all, in fact - maybe a hundred were, but hardly more.

                  Well, maybe I read the wrong books.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Reconnaissance armored vehicles - this is not hypothetical, there was a great need for them

                  In reliable and passable. Not in T-1 and T-2.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The T-2 was very successful in this role, which is why Luhs (a specialized intelligence tank) was made precisely on its basis.

                  At the same time, the T-2 was completely redone, essentially leaving only the hull. And that was later.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This is the meaning of the tank troops - deep raids and enemy coverage :))) It goes without saying that their flanks are unsecured.

                  Only if such a state does not exceed the reaction time of the enemy. The Germans complained that the organization was cracking at the seams and even the headquarters were often not even covered to a minimum, not to mention the supply. Actually, thanks to this, the offensive passed so quickly. When these territories fought back, the Soviet troops were already operating as expected.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But they were provided at the beginning of the Second World War.

                  Nonetheless, it is not enough to realize the plans drawn up in advance. Those. it was a gamble after all.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  everything happens in war

                  So that’s the point of the work of the General Staff, so that there isn’t everything, but exactly what is planned.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  They had a whole gastritis division (where they expelled those who ruined the stomach on dry land)

                  Our situation with control and reporting was much worse. So the Germans arranged it with fat.
        3. 0
          20 June 2018 20: 27
          The Germans had tank troops, which were equipped with everything necessary and fully met the tasks that the command set for them.


          Well, yes, with everything you need (almost!) Except for the tanks themselves ...
          1. +3
            20 June 2018 21: 26
            Quote: Olezhek
            Well, yes, with everything you need (almost!) Except for the tanks themselves ...

            Their materiel (tanks) also fully met the tasks of a tank (maneuverable) war. You can’t understand one thing - in order to fight in the most modern way at that time, you didn’t need to have the strongest tanks at all :)))) It seems to you that if our tanks had stronger guns and armor, then the German ones were no good and this is not so - the Blitzkrieg theory, the theory of deep operation (as the Germans understood it and how we understood it during the years of the Second World War, and not according to the works of Triandafillov) did not require “tanks having no analogues in the world” :)))) Speed, technical resource, reliability, armament and armor sufficient against infantry and field artillery - that it was important, and superiority over the enemy tanks - absolutely not.
            1. 0
              21 June 2018 11: 10
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It seems to you that if our tanks had stronger guns and armor, then the German ones were no good, and this is not so - the blitzkrieg theory, the theory of deep operation (as the Germans understood it and how we understood it during the Second World War, and not according to the works of Triandafillov ) did not require "not having analogues in the world" tanks

              The funny thing is that in the second half of the war the situation was exactly the same, just the sides changed: the Germans already had strong guns and thick armor, and our BTVs successfully attacked. smile
      4. +1
        20 June 2018 10: 56
        In fact, the technique is secondary. The main thing is the people who sit in it.
        Objectively, in 41-42 the level of training of technical (and those only) specialists (tankers, pilots, artillerymen) of the Red Army was lower. And the interaction between the military branches was virtually absent.

        All this more or less by the end of 42 years. It should be noted that in 44-45, all these sores were also present, but in much smaller volumes.

        Plus it should be noted that most equipment is lost either for technical reasons (breakdowns). In terms of combat losses, the bulk of our tanks are lost from bombing and anti-tank artillery.
        Actually tank battles were not very many. The main tank battles were in Ukraine in the Dubno region.
        1. 0
          20 June 2018 11: 26
          Quote: alstr
          The main tank battles were in Ukraine in the Dubno region.

          Where they, in fact, were also not really :))))
      5. 0
        20 June 2018 15: 27
        It is interesting to read Guderian's Memoirs of a Soldier. It is especially interesting to read what he did NOT write about. The fact that it is Guderian who is responsible for the failure of Barbarossa is a small bonus. :-). But about tanks ....
        1. Before the war, the Wehrmacht Arms Department did not comply with the Fuhrer’s order and did not re-equip the T-4 tanks with a long-barrel gun. Hitler was furious and, until the end of the war, recalled this fact of failure to comply with the order. Question - Why did the Arms Directorate leave a short stub on German tanks. What guided by the same.
        2. In the summer of 1942, Guderian was appointed inspector of the armored forces. And his first demand was to transfer all anti-tank divisions to tank divisions. All generals ganged up on him and Hitler was forced to stole this offer of his. But that’s why Guderian wanted to leave the German infantry divisions without anti-tank troops, he doesn’t write.
        3. Guderian was an adversary of the Tigers and Panthers, and until the end of the war he tried to keep the release of triples and fours. Why?
        Of all these questions, the question should arise - what exactly should have been the armored forces of the Wehrmacht (which Guderian saw them).
        And then it will become clear why the triples and fours were definitely better than the T-34
        1. 0
          22 June 2018 10: 42
          Quote: Bakht
          1. Before the war, the Wehrmacht Arms Department did not comply with the Fuhrer’s order and did not re-equip the T-4 tanks with a long-barrel gun. Hitler was furious and, until the end of the war, recalled this fact of failure to comply with the order. Question - Why did the Arms Directorate leave a short stub on German tanks. What guided by the same.

          Apparently, the “four” was a CS tank. And for her, the decline in the power of the OFS, inevitable when installing a 50-mm gun, was unacceptable.
          By the way, there was no Hitler's rage - the Führer knew from the very beginning that the "long" 50-mm gun would be in the series only by the end of 1941.
          On February 19, he ordered the immediate development of this tool and its installation in Pz.Kpfw.III, as well as in one Pz.Kpfw.IV. On March 19, a month after the order was issued, a prototype gun for the Pz.Kpfw.III was ready. There was not much difference in the designs of the 42-caliber and 60-caliber versions of the 50-mm gun. In addition to a longer barrel, the new model received a TZF 5e sight, as well as slightly reworked elements of the balance and rollback systems.
          The gun was demonstrated to Hitler on March 31. It was expected that launching the gun into the series would be possible 4–5 months after setting such a task.
          © Y. Pasholok
          As for the 42-caliber 50-mm gun, they began to put it on the “three” right after the French campaign - strictly according to plan.
          In June 1940, an order was given to begin the installation of a 50-mm 5 cm KwK 38 L / 42 tank gun in the Pz.Kpfw.III. The first 5 tanks with such guns were expected to be received before the end of the month. The development of 5 cm KwK 38 L / 42 began in March 1938.
          © Y. Pasholok
        2. 0
          22 June 2018 10: 50
          Quote: Bakht
          3. Guderian was an adversary of the Tigers and Panthers, and until the end of the war he tried to keep the release of triples and fours. Why?

          EMNIP, Heinz believed that instead of expensive and complex “panthers”, cheap and simple “fours” should be produced. Unfortunately, he did not explain how to quickly launch the production of “fours” at plants optimized for the production of “three” and “panthers”.
          And, by the way, about the complexity of production and the cost of the “panthers” Guderian was also mistaken - by the cost of the production car the “panthers” almost equaled the “four” by 1944, and the volume of their production also almost coincided with the “fours”.
      6. 0
        23 June 2018 16: 09
        The chief of the general staff of the German ground forces F. Halder wrote in his diary of December 23, 1940: "Trophy tanks: 4930 units." Plus 3582 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces, of which 772 tanks were Czech-made.
        General Petrov Vasily Stepanovich, in those years a lieutenant who met the Germans in 1941 on the Bug, writes that on June 22, 1941 at ten in the evening their German 152-mm howitzers battery attacked. They had to be allowed to approach 700 m (there were only 10 shells left on the battery), and after the opening of the fire, two tanks scattered to pieces from our 48-pound shells, the rest departed. Reconnaissance was sent to the remnants of the tanks: "The sergeant put the trophies on his overcoat: a handful of short pistol cartridges with a recess on the flange, a small cylindrical part with a piece of hose, in all likelihood, a sensor from the instrument panel. The panel has phosphorescent inscriptions in French ... Does this mean that a wrecked tank of French manufacture? Or equipped with French devices? According to snippets of documents seized from the members of the dead crew, it was established that the tank belonged to the reconnaissance battalion of the 14th Panzer Division. "
        Here on this and rode ...
        1. Alf
          0
          23 June 2018 16: 13
          Quote: Andrey NM
          The chief of the general staff of the German ground forces F. Halder wrote in his diary of December 23, 1940: "Trophy tanks: 4930 units." Plus 3582 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces, of which 772 tanks were Czech-made.

          What, in Germany there were 8,5 thousand tanks? What a news...
          1. 0
            23 June 2018 16: 18
            Well, let’s assume that Halder was covered by glitches ... And twice Petrov’s GSS too.
            1. Alf
              0
              23 June 2018 16: 27
              Quote: Andrew NM
              Well, let’s assume that Halder was covered by glitches ... And twice Petrov’s GSS too.

              And what about Petrov? He did not say that the Hans had 8,5 thousand tanks.
              Most likely, Halder wrote that there were TOTAL 4930 tanks, 3582 of them, + trophy ones.
              1. 0
                23 June 2018 16: 30
                The fact of the matter is that Halder wrote specifically about captured tanks. Specifically.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  23 June 2018 16: 50
                  Quote: Andrew NM
                  The fact of the matter is that Halder wrote specifically about captured tanks. Specifically.

                  Where so much?
                  Before the German offensive in the West, the British had 12 divisions and over 500 tanks in France, 9 of these 15 divisions were located in Belgium as part of the combined Anglo-French Northeastern Front, which was supposed to cover this direction from a possible German strike.
                  The French also had an impressive tank fleet (more than 3000 vehicles) - among which were medium Somua and heavy tanks B1.

                  So I ask, where did the 4950 captured tanks come from, if at the beginning of the French campaign in the forces of the Allies there were TOTAL 3,5 tanks?
                  1. 0
                    23 June 2018 17: 04
                    Those. do you mind about 3500 captured tanks?
                    1. Alf
                      0
                      23 June 2018 17: 18
                      Quote: Andrew NM
                      Those. do you mind about 3500 captured tanks?

                      And how much was lost by the allies?
    2. +2
      20 June 2018 07: 58
      The author is a strong recommendation to learn history, tactics and strategy.


      Here you are to me illiterate and explain what the Germans went to the Volga and the North Caucasus in the summer of 1942 of the year ...

      Chi zrada Ali peremoga?
      About 1945 th is not necessary
      Tell us about the brilliant strategic position of the USSR in the autumn of 1942.
      1. +1
        20 June 2018 11: 07
        Quote: Olezhek
        Here you are to me illiterate and explain what the Germans went to the Volga and the North Caucasus in the summer of 1942 of the year ...

        That they recognized their ignorance is good, and then take Tippelskirch and read. There is only one volume, and the German intelligence general wrote.
        If in a nutshell - the defeat of Germany was determined in the battle of Moscow. After the defeat of the Army Group Center, the German General Staff no longer saw a way to defeat the USSR by military means
        1. +4
          20 June 2018 12: 27
          If in a nutshell - the defeat of Germany was determined in the battle of Moscow. After the defeat of the Army Group Center, the German General Staff no longer saw a way to defeat the USSR by military means


          after a lost war in a country occupied by the enemies you don’t
          In the memoirs, which are already written mainly for the purpose of self-disqualification:
          bad Hitler who screwed up everything ... and we are all innocent in nothing
          and generally the victims of the regime ... take pity on us.

          De facto: outline the brilliance of the strategic position of the USSR in the autumn of 1942 ...
          1. 0
            20 June 2018 13: 11
            Quote: Olezhek
            De facto: outline the brilliance of the strategic position of the USSR in the autumn of 1942 ...

            I tell you again - read Tippelskirche :))))
            Well, if very briefly:
            At the beginning of the war, there were 3 army groups capable of conducting offensive operations. None of them fulfilled the assigned tasks, while Army Group Center suffered a heavy defeat in the battle of Moscow and lost its ability to conduct offensive operations.
            The remaining forces suffered substantial losses, but could still advance. However, their combat potential was not enough either to try to capture Moscow again (which gave at least some hope of Stalin's surrender) or to defeat the main forces of the Red Army. As a result, the Germans plan goals for themselves in 1942, which even if they are achieved (the same Stalingrad) do not lead to their victory. In fact, the war begins for the sake of the war "we can’t win anymore, but to splurge as it should - easily!" in the hope that some miracle will happen. At the same time, the German offensive in 1942 did not achieve its goals.
            The result - by the fall of 1942 the Wehrmacht had run out of steam and lost the ability to conduct strategic offensive operations, while it was building up forces more slowly than the Red Army did. In 1943, the Germans were no longer trying to attack somewhere - their war plan revolved around the IMITATION of a strategic offensive - the Citadel. Well, let's say a miracle happened, the Citadel succeeded and the Germans would capture the Oryol ledge ... And then what? laughing
            Quote: Olezhek
            in memoirs that are already written mainly for the purpose of self-whitening

            (grimacing) Well, don’t, huh? What "self-whitening" did you see in the fact that the OKW after the battle of Moscow practically spread its hands and said "We lost the war!"? :)))))
            1. +1
              20 June 2018 20: 56
              The result - by the fall of the 1942 g Wehrmacht ran out of steam and lost the ability to conduct strategic offensive operations,


              1 The second most important city and industrial center - Leningrad - is surrounded and the Red Army can do nothing for its deblokade

              2 The enemy is not so far from Moscow ...

              3 The enemy went to the Volga in the Tsaritsyn / Stalingrad area and to the North Caucasus ...
              well, local people are beginning to glance toward Germany as a potential winner

              4 The people in the USSR are starving.

              5 The Red Army has never crushed the Germans in earnest - with a large entourage ...

              and so - all is well "Wehrmacht lost"

              No, write this: "but the backbone of the fascist beast was already interrupted (in two places!) And it was not long for that to remain its stinky fangs ..."
              1. 0
                20 June 2018 21: 38
                Quote: Olezhek
                the second largest city and industrial center - Leningrad - is surrounded and the Red Army can not do anything for its deblockade

                It is not the specific city that matters, but the preserved industrial potential - and so it turned out to be more powerful than the German one :)
                Quote: Olezhek
                The enemy is not so far from Moscow ...

                And at the same time, even hypothetically no longer considers the possibility of its capture.
                Quote: Olezhek
                The enemy went to the Volga in the Tsaritsyn / Stalingrad region and to the North Caucasus ...

                So what? It made the Wehrmacht somehow stronger? :)))
                Quote: Olezhek
                well, local people are beginning to glance toward Germany as a potential winner

                Yes, the Chechens were spotting
                Quote: Olezhek
                The people in the USSR are starving.

                Let's just say it's malnourished.
                Quote: Olezhek
                The Red Army has never defeated the Germans seriously - with a large circle ...

                The Red Army was the first and only in the world to inflict a heavy defeat on Army Group Center, from which they had to drape from Moscow and after which it lost its offensive ability. Prior to this, neither the British, nor the French, nor the Polish troops had such a victory, either over a group of armies, not over a corps, not over a division - over a German regiment somehow did not work out.
                Incidentally, the victory near Moscow had a great influence on both Roosevelt and Churchill. Read Churchill :)))))
      2. +1
        20 June 2018 12: 25
        Quote: Olezhek
        Tell us about the brilliant strategic position of the USSR in the autumn of 1942.

        And what is bad about autumn 1942?
        Near Leningrad, the operation to break through the Germans to join with the Finns was disrupted - at the cost of postponing the breakthrough of the blockade for 3 months. Near Moscow, the Rzhev-Sychevskoe butting continues, the German operation “Virbelvind” was disrupted and forces are accumulating for “Mars”. Near Stalingrad, the swift German offensive was drowned in city blocks. The Germans are throwing all the reserves they have in the furnace of urban battles, slowly pushing ours to the Volga, but gradually depriving themselves of moving parts and weakening the flanks. For the first time, the Germans were forced to widely use on the secondary (as it seems to them) directions of the satellites, qualitatively inferior to the Wehrmacht, up to entire armies. The accumulation of our forces for Uranus begins.
        By the way, in 1941 the Germans advanced in three strategic directions. In 1942 they barely scraped together strength for one strategic operation.
        1. 0
          20 June 2018 13: 33
          And what is bad about autumn 1942?
          (for the USSR)

          Well, if you think so .... then we really do not argue about anything ...
  7. +3
    20 June 2018 06: 58
    Underestimating the enemy is always fraught ...
    Why Hitler did not capture England, but decided to get to it through the "Indian Campaign" - we will never know ...
    1. +1
      20 June 2018 08: 40
      There are hints in Mein Kampf and in numerous memoirs of the same V. Schellenberg for example.
    2. +1
      20 June 2018 14: 25
      Why did not Hitler capture England? French scientist Nicolas Bonnal examines a very interesting detail from the biography of Adolf Hitler. The German dictator, it turns out, loved and admired the prim and traditional UK. Rumor has it that it came to frank envy. And this fact explains many of Hitler’s steps towards the country of Albion (https://www.pravda.ru/society/family/pbringing/1
      8-10-2012 / 1131740-ang-0 /). As for the topic of the article, where the attack on the USSR is “for Germany it was a“ colonial war ”,” 9 should be remembered here for the reasons voiced by Hitler, and in the first place,
      Only over the past two decades (1921-1941) did the Jewish - Bolshevik rulers of Moscow try to set fire to not only Germany, but also the whole of Europe (the idea of ​​a world revolution). Germany was not trying to transfer its nationalist worldview to Russia, but the Jewish - Bolshevik rulers in Moscow unswervingly attempted to impose their domination on our and other European nations, not only spiritual, but, above all, military.
      Further, the accusations of the USSR in violations of agreements, for example, in Lithuania and Romania, as well as statements about the buildup of Soviet troops and the preparation of the USSR for war. Most importantly, it must be realized how and why Hitler was allowed to come to power, on whose money, how and why defeated and disarmed Germany was allowed to create the Third Reich, turned a blind eye to all violations of Versailles, fed Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia, as, later, and Poland, in general, practically all of Europe, having received a powerful potential, anti-USSR, anti-Russia. Why Stalin saw in the German National Socialists a closer spirit in spirit than the bourgeoisie of England and France was, why the USSR adopted a pact, and did not declare war on a still insufficiently strong Germany in 1939, joining England and France ... , about our "not ready", but the main reason seems not the "weakness" of our army, and even not repression, which led to the loss of experienced commanders, but the binding of any initiative, the imposition of political motives on the military, the general illiterate leadership of military actions and from the Kremlin. Joseph Vissarionovich did not immediately draw the necessary conclusions, and only by limiting amateurish intervention, entrusting the command to the military, not to politicians, and only then our army began to win. Speaking of the allies, primarily the Anglo-Saxons, who, by and large, fed Hitler, and profited from the war, that is, the famous saying of Harry Truman, which is well illustrated.
      If we see that Germany wins the war, we should help Russia, if Russia wins, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler under any circumstances as winners.
  8. 0
    20 June 2018 07: 08
    Do you want to say that Pz-I, with the support of Yu-87, is a mega-weapon?

    It depends on who controls and who commands.
    In the article, I agree that Germany regarded the USSR as a colony, under-state - untermesh. But got a bummer. And the rest, in the article, some confusion and incomprehensible conclusions.
    1. +2
      20 June 2018 07: 46
      Do you want to say that Pz-I, with the support of Yu-87, is a mega-weapon?


      It depends on who controls and who commands.


      Result - yes
      But by itself, the German military equipment on the background of the Soviet is not so shining in June 1941-th
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      20 June 2018 08: 11
      they reached to one of the last large industrial hubs available to Stalin, and no one could stop them.


      So Stalingrad was by no means the LAST large industrial center of the USSR.


      You read a little more carefully ... and do not fall into the propaganda rage

      Leningrad is surrounded, but not captured. Arms production there was continuous all the time of the siege, and men of military age replenished the ranks


      dead of hunger.
  10. +3
    20 June 2018 08: 11
    There is truth in the article, we need to look at the facts, no one is perfect, both sides laughed, but the country of the 41st and the country of the 43rd are different countries (lyuli are life-giving), the Germans fulfilled their plans to the Volga, they took the country under control in general , relaxed, but forgot that the other side really wanted to live ...
    1. +2
      20 June 2018 11: 11
      Quote: wooja
      the Germans fulfilled their plans

      wassat fool
      Yeah. Leningrad and Moscow in 1941 fell, as I understand it
      1. +1
        20 June 2018 12: 30
        Yep Leningrad with Moscow in 1941 g fell, as I understand


        Do not divide everything into 2 situations:
        the plan is implemented on all 100
        plan not implemented at all - 0

        There are other situations ...

        Leningrad - blocked - starving, although yes, not taken.
        1. +1
          20 June 2018 13: 03
          Quote: Olezhek
          Do not divide everything into 2 situations:
          the plan is implemented on all 100
          plan not implemented at all - 0
          There are other situations ...

          For Germans in 1941 there was one situation: either they comply with Directive No. 21 in fullor they lose the war. Because the blitzkrieg didn’t come from a good life — a long war on two fronts meant death for the Reich.
          Instead of demobilizing the army, returning the rank and file to agriculture and industry, re-equipping the Wehrmacht and preparing for war with the Allies (including at sea), the Reich received a front devouring resources and people (and in the depths of an unfriendly territory, poor in roads), a shortage of labor and continuation of hunger in the rear. Oh yes, also all the fuel resources that the Germans had been accumulating since the autumn of 1940 ended by the end of 1941.
          1. +1
            20 June 2018 14: 11
            For the Germans in 1941, the situation was one: either they comply with Directive No. 21 in full, or they lose the war. Because a blitzkrieg did not come from a good life - a long war on two fronts meant death for the Reich.


            1 And ​​from where does it follow that if Hitler's Germany could win only for 2 a month, but not later, then the Stalinist USSR could fight endlessly?
            Was he "cut out of the diamond"?
            2 Where did you see the second front in 1941-1942? In Algeria? Operation "Torch"?
            1. +1
              20 June 2018 15: 28
              Quote: Olezhek
              1 And ​​from where does it follow that if Hitler's Germany could win only for 2 a month, but not later, then the Stalinist USSR could fight endlessly?
              Was he "cut out of the diamond"?

              From real life - when we resisted, even when the Germans reached Moscow and Stalingrad.
              Without the quick defeat of the pre-war personnel of the Red Army in a border battle, the Germans would first bind in the second echelon of the border districts and formations of the internal, Siberian and Far East districts, and then in the freshly mobilized formations. The main problem of the Wehrmacht is that the Reich is physically unable to provide supplies for long battles and the defeat of the Red Army in the depths of the USSR. The same GA “Sever” with its crazy pace of offensive died in Estonia, sending a third of the fleet for repairs and redirecting the remaining vehicles to supply only the mechanized formations (the infantry was left to its own devices).
              On the other hand, since the 20s, the USSR has been preparing the evacuation of industry and supplies for the first year of the war. All these "little blood, on foreign territory"- this is only propaganda, in real life all the people's commissariats annually adjust the evacoplan according to data from NGOs. And a big war for the USSR is planned based on the strategy of starvation.
              In any case, the USSR must hold out until 1944.
              Quote: Olezhek
              Where did you see the second front in 1941-1942? In Algeria? Operation Torch?

              In addition to Africa, there was also the Atlantic. How many resources and personnel were pulled by the Kriegsmarine? Plus the Reich Air Defense - one Kammhuber Line cost a lot.
        2. +1
          20 June 2018 13: 21
          Quote: Olezhek
          Do not divide everything into 2 situations:
          the plan is implemented on all 100
          plan not implemented at all - 0

          Olezhek, war, it is either won or not. Well, there is no third situation here and half tones too laughing
          The point is that to win the war you need:
          1) Or capture the enemy’s territory in such a quantity that he could no longer continue the war further
          2) Either destroy his army and thereby make his resistance impossible
          3) Or frighten his leadership to such an extent that it capitulates, although paragraphs 1-2 are not fulfilled laughing
          So the Germans after the battle of Moscow didn’t succeed on any point and did not have a chance to succeed, which the Wehrmacht’s leadership perfectly understood
          1. +1
            20 June 2018 20: 16
            Olezhek, war, it is either won or not. Well, there is no third situation here and half tones too

            Mdja?
            You still surprise me ...
            Did Britain win the WWI? Or how?
            Rather or as ...

            Did the Europeans win in Libya?
            And who won there?

            Most of the European Wars 16-17-18 centuries ...
            And often an obscure result ... fought ... but no one was pinned to the wall ...

            Unconditional surrender is the exception rather than the rule.

            Well, or there is a series of Russian-Polish wars ...

            the wars of Francis I in Italy ...
            30 summer war ...
            Who won it unconditionally?
            1. 0
              20 June 2018 23: 55
              Quote: Olezhek
              Did Britain win the WWI? Or how?

              Won.
              Quote: Olezhek
              Did the Europeans win in Libya?

              Naturally
              Quote: Olezhek
              And who won there?

              Europeans :)))))
              Olezhek, war is the achievement of goals. In WWI, England wanted to crush the power of Germany - and crushed it (at a high price, yes, but it reached its goal). In Libya, the Europeans decided to arrange an Arab spring, that is, a zone of chaos. To do this, it was necessary to support the civil war and kill Gaddafi. They eventually achieved this.
              Quote: Olezhek
              Most of the European Wars 16-17-18 centuries ...
              And often an obscure result ...

              Sometimes it happens that as a result of a war, no country achieves the desired result. In this case, we can say that both sides lost
              1. 0
                21 June 2018 07: 36
                Did Britain win the WWI? Or how?

                Won.

                In WWI, England wanted to crush the power of Germany - and crushed (at a high price, yes, but it achieved its goal)


                I report: the goal of British imperial policy is to crush the strongest potential rival ...
                The British Empire did not have and could not have permanent friends / enemies on the continent. Only permanent interests.

                Well, yes, they crushed the German Empire ...

                but after the war they were in debt like silks ...
                And the USA became the leading economy of the world ...

                Pyrrhic victory ... she is so ... Pyrrhic ...

                Liddell Harth: “The goal of war is a better world than the pre-war one”

                The world of 0's of 20-th century was definitely better for Britain than the world of 20's ...
    2. +2
      20 June 2018 12: 32
      Quote: wooja
      the Germans fulfilled their plans to the Volga reached the country took control of the whole

      The German plan was to defeat the main forces of the Red Army in the Border Battle in no more than a month. And in the subsequent march along the territory free of troops, occasionally interrupted by local operations to defeat the internal districts and the Siberian-Far Eastern formations that had not had time to cross-border battle.
      What was done of this?
      Actually, the Smolensk operation already meant the collapse of the Barbarossa - full-scale multi-month military operations in the depths of the USSR by the forces of the army group were not provided. Immediately, problems began with the supply and replenishment of equipment (especially considering that it was during the battles near Smolensk that the “rollers” motor resource ended).
      1. 0
        21 June 2018 13: 09
        Actually, already the Smolensk operation meant the collapse of "Barbarossa"


        That is, after Smolensk, Hitler could safely shoot?
        Or when?
        Specify.
        Germans love accuracy. wink
        1. 0
          21 June 2018 15: 31
          Quote: Olezhek
          That is, after Smolensk, Hitler could safely shoot?
          Or when?

          After Smolensk, one could already think about poison, pool, carpet and gasoline. And it was guaranteed to shoot after the winter three counter-attacks of the Red Army: Moscow, Tikhvin, Rostov. smile
    3. MrK
      0
      20 June 2018 13: 26
      Quote: wooja
      the Germans fulfilled their plans

      The main condition for success for Operation Barbarossa was not surprise and not the creation of multiple superiority in the directions of the main attack. Not tank wedges or even a successful bypass of the Pripyat swamps, the mention of which intrusively passes from one version of this plan to another. The main condition for victory was the transience of the war. [Directive No. 21 of the High Command ("Operation Barbarossa"). The rate of the Fuhrer. No. 33408. Printed 9 copies. Top secret. Signature: Adolf Hitler. 18.12.1940].

      According to this plan, the German command hoped that the goals of Barbarossa would be achieved in the near future. Moscow and Leningrad, according to plan - 25 of August. Volga - the beginning of October. Baku and Batumi - early November. So what did you take on schedule?
      Well, where are the "Germans fulfilled their plans"
      1. 0
        20 June 2018 14: 17
        Well, where are the "Germans fulfilled their plans"


        Now tell me how the leadership of the Red Army fulfilled its plans for the country's defense.
        Or the Red Army did not need to fulfill the plans? Was it a pure Wehrmacht problem to carry out some plans?
        Or do you think the Soviet Union could "mess" to infinity?
  11. +10
    20 June 2018 09: 06
    "For some reason, they did not read Soviet propaganda." This is not so, Oleg. They listened to her. My second director at NII-33 S. Spirov by decision of the Military Council of the Leningrad Front, on August 28, a radio station was put into operation in Leningrad. She broadcast for 2000 km. Therefore, in Berlin they listened to programs from blocked Leningrad. Broadcasting was ongoing. Captured Nazis spoke. And every 17 seconds, the metronome counted the death of another fascist on the Leningrad front. Goebbels and Hitler were in a panic. And they could not do anything, the antennas were suspended on slings of airships. Spirov S.V. For this feat he was awarded the Order of the Red Star.
    1. +3
      20 June 2018 09: 08
      I missed it. The station was commissioned in 1942.
  12. BAI
    0
    20 June 2018 09: 18
    German headquarters, in principle, did not see Russia as a worthy adversary.

    Well, everyone knows Hitler’s expression "Russia is a colossus with feet of clay."

    Here it’s customary for us to laugh at the fact that in the autumn of 1942 a German “was ready to go to India”

    Now a version is being considered that was already in 1941. What did Stalin know and expected that the Germans would go there through pro-German Turkey, therefore he was afraid to “provoke”.
  13. +1
    20 June 2018 09: 32
    the comrade started well, but then the breathing room went astray (behind Stalingrad we have Zamlitsi dumb, cholovikav dumb, Mist and hail dumb). Get your honestly zroblenny like
    1. +1
      20 June 2018 10: 31
      (Behind Stalingrad we have zyamlitz mute, cholovikav mute, mist and mids nem).


      Look at the population density map, be so affectionate.
      and note - Central Asia, it is so average.
    2. +1
      20 June 2018 10: 39
      open the map and look — there are beyond the Volga and now there are practically no settlements, in the Urals there were only two cities — Uralsk and Guryev (with a very small population)
  14. +1
    20 June 2018 09: 37
    Not undeniably, but interesting.
  15. +5
    20 June 2018 10: 16
    By the time the war was already going on for a year and a half, the USSR lost outright two summer campaigns
    author!
    We need to understand a simple truth: Hitler was given 2 months to defeat the USSR.
    TWO MONTH !!!
    If during this time the USSR did not capitulate and was not destroyed, then the war has already been lost, no matter how long it lasts! Because the war of the 20th century is accounting, logistics and debit credit, and surpassed even the united gevropu by the resources of the USSR.
    The defeat came when on the 4th month of the war, when the USSR was not destroyed, the process of defeating the Nazis was further launched.
    1. 0
      20 June 2018 10: 23
      Because the war of the 20 century is accounting, logistics and debit credit, and in terms of resources of the USSR it was even better than the combined geuropath.


      On resources explored or unexplored?

      in industrial capacity, too, superior?
      Germany + Czechoslovakia + Austria + Belgium + France + Holland ???
      And we had more people than in Europe?
    2. 0
      20 June 2018 10: 30
      The defeat came when on the 4 month of the war


      Those. somewhere in October 1941 th ????
      I recommend To Simonov "Alive and dead"
      there is very well written about it ... very frankly ... (too much for the Soviet era)
      about the defeat of Germany in October 1941
      you read, read ...
    3. 0
      20 June 2018 11: 00
      and 4-th month of the war, when the USSR was not destroyed - then the process of defeating the Nazis was launched.


      Tell me straight - the process of self-destruction ... laughing
  16. +3
    20 June 2018 10: 37
    respected popularizer of the secret history of the world Rezun

    but why respect then ????
    For them, “pain and tragedy” began much later, closer to 1944

    author!!!! Czechs released the latest products for the needs of the Reich on May 10 !!!!! Yes Yes!!!! 1945 year !!!! already being released !!!! and in general http://www.plam.ru/hist/velikii_tankovyi_grabezh_
    trofeinaja_bronja_gitlera / p1.php
    but, excuse me, they reached one of the last large industrial nodes available to Stalin

    Nick it turns out Chelyabinsk stormed and I did not know it !!!!!!!!!
    German "was ready to go to India"

    they went for oil !!!! which was not !!!!! and desert foxes in Cairo, the same is not a great hangover climbed !!!! but with a simple and specific purpose in mind !!!!!
    etc.......
    1. 0
      21 June 2018 13: 07
      Nick it turns out Chelyabinsk stormed and I did not know it !!!!!!!!!


      And a lot of the Urals was the industry in 41-42?
      If you compare with the whole of Europe?
  17. +5
    20 June 2018 10: 39
    The article "niochem" and also stupid.
    German generals, officers, and soldiers did not at all think of a "distant future."


    That is why they relied on Blitzkrieg, realizing that a protracted war would destroy them. The German generals “did not think” very much. There were even proposals to go to peace when in 1941 the blitzkrieg failed and this became clear under Moscow.

    It was their own army that caused serious concern among the German military experts - not fired upon and the experience of large-scale military operations did not actually have


    Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the Dutch operation and before that participation in the Spanish Civil War. This is what you call a lack of experience.
    The tactics of a tank strike with cover by infantry divisions have been tested and tested. A breakthrough of the Maginot fortified line, where anti-aircraft guns were used to destroy pillboxes and break into defense, and then it is used on the eastern front.

    Do you call this lack of experience?

    But, despite all the grossest mistakes of the Soviet military leadership in 1941-42


    Everyone has mistakes. Just let’s take it bluntly: Blitzkrieg was foiled in 1941. The plan for the Soviet command to exhaust the advancing units was fulfilled. Heavy. "Inexperienced" Germans acted on operational open spaces of 200-300 km, which we still could not and operations of such a level could not imagine ...


    USSR lost two summer campaigns outright


    What are your parameters for winning and losing? What does "clean" mean? Do you understand what are “tasks”, “plans”, preservation of “fighting efficiency”?

    Well, tell me what such "innumerable reserves" were hidden behind Stalingrad.


    Perhaps you are told by some strange personages who did not read anything about the war, but the war was difficult, and it is clear to all adequate people. And on the edge of death we stood. And to attribute to opponents some thesis, and then to debunk - this is profanity.

    In fact, that very war very clearly breaks up into two completely different “wars” - and just “according to Stalingrad”


    It is opened up to you. And there are objective reasons for that. Including 41 and 42 years won in the strategic plan, when the German plans were frustrated

    The Germans’s misfortune was just that, they didn’t take this war in the East too seriously before Stalingrad


    You at least look at the number of troops involved since 41 on the eastern front. See how many of them were in the "serious" operation in the west.

    I don’t understand all the post-war bragging of Soviet historians: they say we showed this mustachioed fascist where the crayfish hibernate!


    Yes, you, in my opinion, do not understand anything


    What is the meaning of the article? What are the Germans dissatisfied with?
    How many Germans do you know? In my opinion, they are unhappy that the Nazis led them to the war, after which their country was divided, destroyed and even the yoke was hanged on the whole nation.
    The fact that 1944 and 1945 was a shock to Germany is yes. There it was shown how a blitzkrieg is carried out, when the enemy does not even have time to do anything. The swiftness of strikes and advancement of Soviet troops. And do not forget Goebels propaganda: that in the east are Untermansh and Mongols.
    and there is a "barbarian kingdom" in the East
    You have the right message in the article. Yes, this is how they treated us. It was such a contemptuous attitude that was forged among ordinary Germans. But the generals also knew about the economy of the USSR (although they underestimated it in the end). You did not reveal the only true direction in your article, but you wrote some kind of nonsense.

    In general, watch the 1993 film Stalingrad. an ordinary soldier of the Wehrmacht is perfectly shown there, why, why he, what relation does he have to war, how does it change and so on and so forth. And there is no "stupid losing Ivan" in 41-42 and unexpectedly Stalingrad. There is a lingering loop around the neck of the Reich.
    1. 0
      20 June 2018 20: 58
      How many Germans do you know? In my opinion, they are unhappy that the Nazis led them to the war, after which their country was divided, destroyed and even the yoke was hanged on the whole nation.


      I read German regularly and with interest
      On political topics, mostly.
      I am not interested in football, as well as cars.
  18. +1
    20 June 2018 10: 56
    Fresh, different from the generally accepted look. Logic is present, confirmed by facts.
  19. 0
    20 June 2018 12: 09
    Quote: Olezhek
    Even in the summer of 1942, this was by no means obvious.


    C'mon, already in 42, the highest German generals considered the possibility of concluding a peace treaty with the USSR as a strong one, while the German army was in force ..
  20. +1
    20 June 2018 12: 20
    Well no. The author does not whitewash the vanquished. Red thread, do not be a fool, especially if strong. And if both the second and first and drove through the wort, do not be offended, see p1. and clause 2. Was there a feeling of colonial war? Probably something like that was. How Japan invaded China in 1937. One to one. And preparation, and plans, and ... attitude to the population. We are barbarians for them. And do not think that Europe perceived us as something close. Not worth it. 1848 - Nicholas the First "makes" European politics, saving Austria-Hungary? No ... Just the Austrians hired the Horde from the east, like princes in the 13-14 century in Russia itself. And what, in 1854, Europe went to fight a European country? Yes, no. We read theirs newspaper. We really for them the formation is not clear and not necessary. About how a dwarf hates basketball players. Another psychology. Well, the old European rule-incomprehensible should be eliminated. And yes ... In the first part, an important question is raised: why did the possessed person decide to go to war with the USSR and not take his legitimate half-world? With all the arguments mentioned above, the article’s arguments are in principle realistic. And the huge grouping in the blitzkrieg is caused by the length of the front rather. In some respects, the author is right ... Otherwise, this decision of the Führer from our Russian bell tower is hard to accept. We were not taken seriously ?? !!! And what is this? Isn’t it right now? Read the articles about the harmlessness of nuclear war ... Now the topic is very popular in the West. Now, in general, the situation in terms of propaganda is similar to that of the late thirties: an incomprehensible eastern “kaganate” with a cunning despot-sovereign. And then there was also a general craze for communism in Europe ... In short, the arguments of the article are quite reasoned.
    1. +1
      20 June 2018 12: 38
      Quote: sleeve
      Was there a feeling of colonial war? Probably something like that was.

      Entry in Halder's diary from, for a second, June 29, 1941 (from the beginning of the war - a week):
      “The stubborn resistance of the Russians forces us to fight according to the rules of our combat regulations. In Poland and in the West, we could afford certain liberties and deviations from statutory principles; now it is unacceptable. "

      Such a colonial war ...
      1. 0
        20 June 2018 12: 45
        But this is just the option of "Late to drink Borjomi" ... Far-sighted lapomniks were enough in Germany. Well, who used to understand what was happening. But the entry in the diary can be “read” differently: wow, but in this barbaric Horde you have to tight ...
      2. 0
        20 June 2018 13: 08
        In Poland and in the West, we could afford certain liberties and deviations from the statutory principles


        What was there? In Poland and in the West?
        The epic battle of the titans?
        1. +1
          20 June 2018 13: 23
          Quote: Olezhek
          And what was there?

          And it remains for me once again to offer you to read Tippelskirch laughing
          1. 0
            20 June 2018 13: 44
            And it remains for me once again to offer you to read Tippelskirch


            "There are three forces, the only three forces on earth that can forever conquer and captivate the conscience of these weak robbers, for their happiness, these forces: miracle, mystery and authority"...

            "there will be no end to a series of uchon books ..."
            1. 0
              20 June 2018 14: 38
              Quote: Olezhek
              miracle, mystery and authority "...
              "there will be no end to a series of uchon books ..."

              Well, how do you get your knowledge directly from Space? :))))
        2. 0
          20 June 2018 16: 28
          Quote: Olezhek
          What was there? In Poland and in the West?
          The epic battle of the titans?

          There, in practice, the OSH of the German formations was checked and the interaction of the combat arms was worked out. Moreover, the victorious armies of the last war were the enemy.
          The Red Army had experience in operations with units of the “tank army” or “army group” level and in the interaction of “fast” mechanized units and “slow” infantry? Did the USSR have the experience of repelling counterattacks of enemy tank divisions and, in general, fighting against combat formations larger than the battalion? Did the USSR have experience gaining air supremacy on a theater of the size of France?
          The only pre-war operation to encircle a pair of enemy divisions of the USSR successfully failed:
          Comrade Stalin ... As expected, there were no divisions in the encirclement, the enemy either managed to withdraw the main forces, or rather, there were no large forces in this area for a long time, and a specially trained garrison was sitting, which is now completely destroyed. ..

          However, this was to be expected - the ring was closed for almost a week.
  21. +4
    20 June 2018 13: 23
    Both the author and Rezun have a number of theses that have the right to life. In principle, the author’s article basically repeats the main theses of Rezun from: “Day M”, which are ultimately dragged through all attempts at narration-analytics and are led to the final one: “Could!”.

    As I remember in Rezun’s book, the thesis is: "Hitler was doomed in 1941 - his sudden blow did not become fatal. Only a fatal sudden blow was able to allow Germany to win."

    It seems beautiful and not offensive. However, a "non-fatal" strike was possible thanks to the persistence of the Brest Fortress ... Smolensk ... the plan for evacuating enterprises, the GOELRO plan (after all, evacuating the plant is logical, but without electricity, all machines are scrap!) While the organization of production is in progress, Soviet machine tools stand, and German (European) machines continue to work. The German design bureaus continue to work, which by 1943 were rolling out onto the battlefield a very unpleasant Tiger for the Red Army.

    Watershed ... Stalingrad ... Water! By 1943, the rear companies, which began working in 1942, had gained comparable German power and their products were assembled not in brigades, but in the army. 1942 was the year of the formation of Soviet (rear) industry. Smolensk, Kiev, Minsk, Kharkov and those soldiers who remained in the boilers in 1941-1942 paid for this with freedom.

    And only by the beginning of 1943 the USSR was simply able to afford to speak on equal terms. This Hero was “bought” for the USSR by those Heroes who, not sparing themselves, fought in 1941, restraining the Germans' movements at ANY PRICE. By the way, many of them were ideological communists and went to the front as volunteers and were the first to attack, because ... the communists!

    Well, then, Germany fought for the time being on a "slack". The German factories themselves - this is not the Reich industry - only Czech factories gave the Germans quite bad tanks. Is anything known about their workload?

    And do not muddle those who died or fought in 1941. Talking about the lost battles ... It is difficult to fight on light tanks (designed on the knee of the parts of the "one and a half") against a full-fledged medium tank. It is difficult to start production when there is nothing to eat. It is difficult to start sowing when the men went to the front and perished in the very first months ... and then the elder sons ... then the middle ones ... It is difficult to dig out a fortification when the Army is relentlessly leaving under the blows of the Germans. Just stupidly do not stick a stake from which to dig. Today it is in our rear, and tomorrow in German. And to cover the direction with one division, when by all the laws of war there should be three (!) There, even if you are a Guderian, at least Zhukov and Napoleon in one person - one division will not survive. Especially not equipped with ammunition, formed from untrained people ...

    So weighing nonsense written by the author about the watersheds and other wretched versus the unprepared - sheer finger sucking and a futile attempt to squeeze something hot.
    1. 0
      20 June 2018 20: 37
      It is difficult to fight on light tanks (designed on the knee of the "lorry" parts) against a full-fledged medium tank.


      And which “full-fledged medium tanks” of the Wehrmacht (41-42) do you mean?
      So for reference?

      And why in your version of the history of the Red Army only "light tanks designed on the knee of parts of the lorry"?
      1. +1
        21 June 2018 09: 12
        And which “full-fledged medium tanks” of the Wehrmacht (41-42) do you mean?
        - i.e. Pz-III and Pz-IV, as well as Pz-38 (light), are these bad tanks? and t-xnumx is the top of excellence?
        1. 0
          21 June 2018 13: 05
          Pz-III and Pz-IV,


          it full medium tanks? German analogue thirty-three?
          1. 0
            22 June 2018 05: 25
            Yes, these are full-fledged medium tanks, if you do not recognize this, then you will be given an alternative story ...
      2. +1
        21 June 2018 11: 45
        Quote: Olezhek
        And why in your version of the history of the Red Army only "light tanks designed on the knee of parts of the lorry"?

        And because by August 1, 1941, the Red Army managed to lose 1303 T-34s. And had only 158 T-34s available.
        In less than a month and a half of the war, Soviet troops lost about 70% of the total number of “thirty-four” (1941 vehicles) lost in 1843.
        © Ulanov / Shein
        And this hole had to be plugged with mobile tanks, in the construction of which automobile units were also used.
  22. 0
    20 June 2018 13: 35
    In general, the author is right: if Hitler had not climbed into the Soviet Union it is not yet known what geography would be, but I know for sure: we would not see the Baltic states and Poland on the map. [
    The author is right that 2/3 of the industry had to be created in a new way, it was simply not easy.
    How long Hitler would look and tolerate the Soviet Union the question is already different
  23. 0
    20 June 2018 15: 48
    In vain, gentlemen, the forum users attacked the author! No one whitens and does not revise. The conclusions of the article in no way diminish the role and merits of the Red Army, but rather, I would say, if you agree with the author. There is no ideological sedition that Egorov analyzed the course of events from a slightly different angle, different from the accepted and established official version. On the contrary, some komenty only confirm his thought about the outlook on WWII that has become established in our society! That is why other versions are more valuable, or presented at a different angle, giving the opportunity to experience the whole dramatic nature of that terrible war! Highlight such aspects that are not visible in the presentation of the version familiar to us. Yes, and what a sin to conceal, a solid share of propaganda exalting the role and merit is present in official history, this is not a secret! Even on the example of current PR companies. And these exaggerations certainly amuse our pride, and we are used to it, because we are so loud and indignant! But still, there are aspects that we are not very pleased with, but we must also know and remember them!
  24. +5
    20 June 2018 16: 55
    For the fact that they plunged into the abyss
    We are idol over kingdoms
    And redeemed with our blood
    European liberty, honor and peace?

    AS Pushkin
  25. 0
    20 June 2018 17: 54
    This was still not enough to start winning, but the gap in the organization of troops narrowed sharply (for some reason, all historians first of all pay attention to the quality and quantity of equipment, but the main thing in any army is the officer corps) ... but the Germans did not notice this. The Wehrmacht-1942 did not make a qualitative leap towards the Wehrmacht-1941 (why do you need reinforcements, Hannibal, if you win anyway?).


    This is not true. In the spring of 1942, when preparing the offensive on the southern flank of the Eastern Front, the German command realized that prolonging the war would significantly strengthen the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, and since the total potential of the countries of this coalition was much greater than that of the Axis countries, Germany had nothing else to do except try to achieve victory over the USSR during the summer offensive in 1942. For this offensive, the Germans decided to use all of their small reserves, and to compensate for the losses of experienced fighter pilots, the German command even decided to send a large number of the most experienced pilot instructors from flying schools to the Eastern Front. Adolf Galland wrote about this in his book.

    Serious help on Lend-Lease went after Stalingrad (Anglo-Saxon helps someone who helps himself). They began to seriously bomb Germany in the 1943 year too ... And before that? And before that, our Anglo-Saxon partners were waiting for something ...


    Losses of the ships of the merchant fleet of the British Empire and the United States in the Atlantic in the second half of the 1942 of the year until April of the 1943 of the year were the highest for the entire WWII. In 1942, 34 million tons of cargo was delivered to the British metropolis. For comparison, in 1939, 50 million tons were delivered to the British metro area. German submariners primarily tried to attack tankers going to Britain. As a result of this, the amount of liquid fuel of all kinds among the British in the metropolis was reduced to a minimum and the British considered how much more they could stretch and when they had to significantly reduce the escort of warships going to the metropolis. The heavy ships of the British Navy to save naval fuel oil began to go to sea less and less. Both the Germans and the United States with BI at this time attracted all the reserves at their disposal. Nevertheless, in the 1942 year, the USA and BI did not have time to compensate for the loss of merchant ships in the Atlantic, and tonnage was rapidly declining. All this is described in detail in the book of Grand Admiral Dönitz:

    https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=90209

    Only in April 1943, the USA and BI managed to change the situation in the Atlantic in their favor.
    1. 0
      20 June 2018 20: 35
      Wehrmacht-1942 did not make a qualitative breakthrough with respect to the Wehrmacht-1941 (why do you need reinforcements, Hannibal, if you still win?).


      Germany has nothing to do but to try to achieve victory over the USSR during the summer offensive in 1942. For this offensive, the Germans decided to use all their not great reserves.


      But why "small"?
      Under Germany - all of Europe!
      Industrial opportunities - much higher!
      or are you talking about Romania?

      The losses of the ships of the merchant fleet of the British Empire and the USA in the Atlantic in the second half of the 1942 year to April 1943 were the highest for the entire WWII


      And nevertheless - they didn’t much seek to help the USSR ...
      and yes, they had enough problems.
      1. 0
        21 June 2018 19: 14
        But why "small"?
        Under Germany - all of Europe!
        Industrial opportunities - much higher!


        The war was fought as part of 2's kaolitsy, and not only the USSR fought against Germany and its allies. The potential of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition was significantly greater. Yes, and with the raw materials from the Germans, everything did not look the best.





        http://alternathistory.com/node/11683/190165

        And nevertheless - they didn’t much seek to help the USSR ...
        and yes, they had enough problems.


        In the 1941 year and until April 1943, the Allies in the Atlantic lost a larger tonnage of merchant ships because of the German submarines than the US and BI managed to build. Without US help, BI in the second half of the 1941 year could not actively resist. In the second half of the 1942 of the year, while guarding convoys going to the British metropolis, the Allied naval ships, based in the metropolis, spent approximately 130 thousand tons of naval fuel oil per month. At the same time, fuel oil reserves in metroopliy decreased to 300 thousand tons. Even if the Allies reduced the supply of goods to the British metropolis, then in this case, delivering more cargo to the USSR by the northern route was not the best solution, since in this case the losses of the Allies would only increase without real benefit to the USSR. Therefore, the allies were forced to increase supplies to the USSR through Iran. even though this route was longer, but at the same time, this route was relatively safe and the loss of goods when crossing the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean was relatively low.
  26. +1
    20 June 2018 19: 19
    History does not know the subjunctive moods. This is from the series “what if Columbus’s ships sank along the way and didn’t reach America.” Or "what would happen if Germany started World War II 2-3 years later and managed to develop nuclear weapons at the very dawn of the invasion of the USSR ..."
    And first I wanted to write that such reasoning is useless. But then I realized that anyway, many reasoned and will continue to argue on these topics, because in this way people analyze what happened, like in chess, studying all possible moves and drawing lessons from what they did wrong. To play the next game more correctly ...
    Hitlerite Germany taught in that war the Soviet Union to fight in such a way that at the end of the war the Red Army itself had much to learn. And the most important lesson our state has learned from that war is that its (state's) main duty is to protect its citizens and its territories, because we have always had enemies and always will. And for this you need to spare no resources for the military-industrial complex. We must not lag behind a potential adversary in the military-industrial potential, because the main reason for all wars is always a sense of superiority of one people over another. (We all understand which nation nowadays feels this superiority over others and see confirmation of this rule in various local wars unleashed by this nation in different corners of the Earth.) Since then, the Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, with the exception of the 90s years is developing with a bias towards the military-industrial complex. That war forced us to evolve into one of the main gunsmiths of the planet.
    According to the result of that war, the Germans had no choice but to forget about their conquering ambitions and to transform from a leading nation for the production of military engines to a leading nation for the production of peaceful engines for civilian cars. Intelligence, industriousness and order helped the Germans regain their position in the international arena as one of the European leaders, but now not due to military expansion, but due to purely economic expansion. The Germans no longer want to fight physically with our country, but elements of resentment, neglect and superiority remained. The interest that Russia does not develop too quickly, and even better - generally sat in an eternal crisis, is also present. That’s why the Germans support the economic war unleashed by Washington against the Russian Federation and the reputational vilification war unleashed by London. It is enough to read the German press and it will become clear that they cover all events in Russia exclusively from a political perspective - they do not evaluate the same World Cup from a sporting point of view, but evaluate how this event affects the attitude of the Russian people to the authorities and, in general, attitude to Russia in the world.
    Well, the Americans, as a result of that war, were finally convinced of their exclusivity that the responsibility of the world gendarme lies with them, that only they can make this world a better place and other, other high-profile slogans. Developed a bunch of concepts whose purpose is world domination and world control.
    The most important thing is what conclusions were drawn by the parties from that war. And in this spirit it is still possible to cover this issue. But the message of the author is not clear to me - re-read the last paragraph - it seems that he regrets that a radical revolution in the war took place in Stalingrad and that the Germans did not reach India ...
  27. 0
    20 June 2018 21: 00
    In my opinion, everything is quite simpler. In fact, Hitler needed expansion to maintain power, and by and large he already had no where to go. France is defeated, the Balkans are also, Italy is an ally, Romania and Hungary are allies, Finland is an ally, Sweden is very sympathetic to neutral, Spain is an ally, Britain is an island and, due to the fleet that is superior at times, is not achievable, what remains ??? That's right, bingo !!! But here, surprises awaited him just the same, and by no means in a Brest fortress (some of the defenders fought courageously and selflessly) it all started with the border guards (the fate of most of the outposts is still unknown) their frenzy and uncompromising battle struck many Germans ... And further more, not only soldiers and men but also women and children resisted them, and in this, in my opinion, the key is that the red banner rose above the Reichstag, and not vice versa ...
    1. 0
      20 June 2018 22: 00
      Quote: hrulevv
      Britain is an island and because of the fleet that is superior at times


      I do not agree. Britain was quite attainable.
      Yes. Her navy was bigger. But, at the disposal of Germany was the mass and the mass of civilian ships. It was only for the landing.
      Blocking all of its coast of Britain was not under force.
      1. Alf
        +1
        20 June 2018 22: 15
        Quote: ammunition
        Quote: hrulevv
        Britain is an island and because of the fleet that is superior at times


        I do not agree. Britain was quite attainable.
        Yes. Her navy was bigger. But, at the disposal of Germany was the mass and the mass of civilian ships. It was only for the landing.
        Blocking all of its coast of Britain was not under force.

        Little of. It was Dunkirk and showed how vulnerable the fleet is when operating off the coast against powerful air forces.
        1. 0
          20 June 2018 22: 32
          Quote: Alf
          Little of. It was Dunkirk and showed how vulnerable the fleet is when operating off the coast against powerful air forces.


          Fully agree with you.
          -----------------------
          There is confidence that Hitler "excreted" in front of Britain, like petty punks in front of tillage. Hitler wanted to "prove" the Anglo-Saxons that he (Hitler) also mr.
          He needed the Anglo-Saxons to recognize him as an equal. That is why Hitler would not have dared to go to Britain.
          ----------------
          Here is such insanity.
          1) And if Hitler had occupied Britain, he was completely! Strategically , would protect the entire western flank of Germany.
          2) If Hitler had blocked Gibraltar and the Suez Canal, and would have turned the Mediterranean into his own inner lake, he was completely! Strategically would protect the entire length of the southern flank of Germany.
          ****
          Both were easy to do ..... But !! Hitler didn’t do it .. and he couldn’t do it, because he fawned like Untermensch in front of Britain and the Anglo-Saxons in general.
          1. 0
            20 June 2018 23: 50
            Quote: ammunition
            Yes. Her navy was bigger. But, at the disposal of Germany was the mass and the mass of civilian ships. It was only for the landing.

            Which was doomed to the notorious and complete failure of Germany. Read a little about the tonnage that was necessary for the landing and the tonnage that Germany had. This is the first. The second - landing - they did not board the ship in the evening and landed in Britain in the morning. Disembarkation is a huge caravan of ships, which must first land the first echelon, then - everything else (these are days for unloading) and then continue to carry reinforcements and supplies for the entire duration of the operation. Germany could not do anything like that
            Quote: Alf
            It was Dunkirk that showed how vulnerable the fleet is when operating offshore against powerful air forces.

            And how much, if not a secret? :))))))) This is the first, and the second, do you even understand that it would be the GERMAN fleet in case of landing that would have to act against the coast against the powerful (English) Air Force? :))))))
            Quote: ammunition
            Hitler wanted to "prove" to the Anglo-Saxons that he (Hitler) was also a master.

            not quite true, but close to the truth. Hitler really believed that he could convince England to recognize his continental conquests and sign the peace. Optimist:)))))))
            1. 0
              21 June 2018 00: 58
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It was only for the landing.
              Which was doomed to Germany’s notorious and complete failure.


              I do not agree. Categorically.
              ----------------------
              Another thing is that Hitler in principle did not plan disembark in the UK. Neither before 1939 of the year .. nor after. That is why he (Hitler) didn’t lift a finger to take steps to prepare his Navy and Air Force for a landing operation.
              --------------------
              And the sky over Britain for the Germans MUCH CLOSER than the sky over Moscow.
              5 - 15 minutes on the fly. Though from France, even from Belgium, even from Norway.
              -----------------
              And for the transportation of one Wehrmacht division, 1 (one) was needed for a dry cargo ship with a displacement of 15 000 tons. And go to Britain .. from half an hour and up to three - four hours.
              And two amphibious divisions, Hitler could land from airplanes even at any moment.
              ---------------
              In a word - If the most serious plan for landing in Britain, as serious as the plan of Barbarossa, was developed, Britain would have fallen in a week.
              1. +1
                21 June 2018 07: 27
                Quote: ammunition
                And for the transportation of one Wehrmacht division, 1 (one) bulk carrier with a displacement of 15 tons was required.

                (wiping away tears of laughter) M-ya .... You reminded me of a children's puzzle from the category of jokes:
                “How many giraffes will fit in a five-ton truck?”
                - Exactly five tons of giraffes
                In general, yes, if you kill all the soldiers, throw them in stacks of the cargo ship, roll cars in three layers on top of them, and load the guns on top of all this, then yes - it’s quite possible that you will transport the division wassat laughing
                And so, for a second, after all the large-scale re-equipment (with hanging bunks, with a minuscule place (soldiers were allowed to take a thing bag of strictly specified dimensions besides personal weapons) on a giant airliner with a displacement of more than 80 thousand tons (Queen Mary) they managed to compact 15 soldiers :) ))) Record (among all military transports) - 000 troops :))))) Without combat supplies and heavy weapons :))))) Just do not need about long crossings, the ship crossed the Atlantic in a matter of days.
                The Germans themselves assumed that for the landing of about 260 thousand soldiers (which Jodl considered the minimum value), a tonnage of 800-900 thousand tons would be needed.
                Quote: ammunition
                And two amphibious divisions, Hitler could land from airplanes even at any moment.

                And what didn’t he drop off? Of course, I’m talking about Crete :)))) Where it was necessary to land just 2 divisions, but at the same time out of 22 people. 750 people were supposed to be delivered by gliders, 750 thousand were thrown out with parachutes, 10 were landed by transport aircraft and 5000 were delivered by sea.
                Quote: ammunition
                And the sky over Britain for the Germans is MUCH CLOSER than the sky over Moscow.
                5 - 15 minutes of flight.

                But fat stupid Goering did not know about this, and, poor fellow, could not provide cover for the bombers attacking London with the latest Me-109.
                Quote: ammunition
                That is why he (Hitler) did not even lift a finger to take measures to prepare his Naval and Air Fleet for the landing operation.

                Huh? That is, some other Hitler issued a directive on preparing for Zeeliev? laughing
                In fact, Hitler was VERY NEEDED to prepare for the landing, regardless of whether he intended to land or not. Because having crushed the British Air Force and having concentrated the masses of troops and transports in the ports of Europe, he would have acquired two damn weighty arguments in negotiations with England about peace.
                1. +1
                  21 June 2018 12: 20
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In general, yes, if you kill all the soldiers, throw them in stacks of the cargo ship, roll cars in three layers on top of them, and load the guns on top of all this, then yes - it’s quite possible that you will transport the division

                  The equipment still needs to be preliminarily passed through the press - otherwise it will fit in mass, but hardly in volume. smile
                  1. 0
                    21 June 2018 12: 54
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The equipment still needs to be preliminarily passed through the press - otherwise it will fit in mass, but hardly in volume.

                    So I therefore suggested first to the people, then to the car, and then to the heavy guns. laughing drinks
                    1. +1
                      21 June 2018 15: 44
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      So I therefore suggested first to the people, then to the car, and then to the heavy guns.

                      And then from above to iron all this "Napoleon" with "Shtugami". smile
                      Seriously, the Japanese calculated 30-35 transports per one airborne division. It’s just that everyone usually forgets that, in addition to people, weapons and equipment, they also need to deliver supplies for at least a week of fighting.
                      1. 0
                        21 June 2018 18: 40
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        It’s just that everyone usually forgets that, in addition to people, weapons and equipment, they also need to deliver supplies for at least a week of fighting.

                        Fi, what uninteresting subtleties :))))) Whether it’s the matter - to take and drop two parachute divisions from planes! And what at the same time they will be left without heavy weapons, and that the ammunition for personal weapons will be for one and a half serious battles, and dry for one and a half days - so real Aryans do not pay attention to such trifles laughing
        2. 0
          21 June 2018 11: 47
          Quote: Alf
          It was Dunkirk that showed how vulnerable the fleet is when operating offshore against powerful air forces.

          But Crete showed that even with absolute superiority in the air, the Royal Navy backlash could hold out at sea enough time to disrupt the landing.
      2. 0
        21 June 2018 12: 18
        Quote: ammunition
        But, at the disposal of Germany was the mass and mass of civilian ships. It was only a landing.

        Oh ho ho ... how simple it is for you. Read about the landing of 1 DMF on Guadalcanal - this is a specialized compound, the backbone of which (1st brmp) trained all the interwar time in practical landing, in the first combat operation managed to arrange such a mess that saved the Yankees only by the lack of organized Japanese forces on the island. It is enough to say that by the end of the landing of the first echelon, the further landing was completely paralyzed - the unloading zone was clogged with weapons and supplies. And even with all the accuracy of the placement of goods on ships. constantly there were situations when something very necessary now turned out to be buried at the bottom. So. divisional artillery, for example, unloaded without tractors.
        Quote: ammunition
        Blocking all of its coast of Britain was not under force.

        Why block the whole coast? Without fighter cover, the landing is doomed initially - so only the south of the Island remains, within the range of 109's combat radius.
        1. 0
          21 June 2018 18: 46
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Oh, ho, ho ... how is it all simple for you?


          And do not give examples of "landings" of the Americans and British. Here is an example of our landing. -
          https://ribalych.ru/2016/11/03/kurilskaya-operaci
          ya /? from = mirtesen
          3000 of our soldiers, approached on wooden skiffs and a self-propelled barge, and took the fortified island on time. Yes, with a garrison in 25 000 soldiers.
          --------------
          The Germans had a similar training.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          Why block the whole coast? Without fighter cover, the landing is doomed initially - so only the south of the Island remains, within the range of 109's combat radius.

          1) What? Messer battle radius 50 km or what?
          2) Germans could also have a naval landing in bad weather. The main thing will land like ours in the Kuriles.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So I therefore suggested first to the people, then to the car, and then to the heavy guns.

          Do not confuse the modern MSR, with the divisions and brigades of 2 world. There the main thing was - horses. That horse is Yes.
          --------------------
          At the end of this analysis -)))) Do you think it is impossible. I think that Hitler simply did not want to.
          1. 0
            21 June 2018 20: 08
            Quote: ammunition
            And do not give examples of "landings" of the Americans and British. Here is an example of our landing. -
            https://ribalych.ru/2016/11/03/kurilskaya-operaci
            ya /? from = mirtesen

            You would bring the magazine "Murzilka" as a link.
            In fact, the ugly curve description of the landing on Shumsha is given through the link.
            Quote: ammunition
            3000 of our soldiers, approached on wooden skiffs and a self-propelled barge, and took the fortified island on time. Yes, with a garrison in 25 000 soldiers.

            In fact, the Shumshu garrison numbered 8 :))) including the 500rd infantry brigade of the 73st infantry division, 91st air defense regiment, fortress artillery regiment, 31th tank regiment (without one company), military garrison Kataoka sea base, aerodrome team, separate units.
            But the Soviet landing was formed from the 101st rifle division of the Kamchatka defense region: two rifle regiments, an artillery regiment, a fighter anti-tank division, and a marine corps battalion. In total - 8363 people.
            Do you know where the figure of 25 thousand Japanese came from? The Shumshu garrison could be reinforced by troops from the neighboring and also very fortified island of Paramushir (there were more than 13000 troops there). Some part of these troops was indeed deployed, but only after the Soviet troops landed. In total, the Japanese lost 300 people in battles (we are 416 people), plus a Japanese general captured 1 general, 525 officers, 11700 soldiers, that is, Shumshu was defended not by 25 people, but by half.
            By the way, about the “wooden skiffs” - two patrolmen (“Dzerzhinsky” and “Kirov”), four minesweepers, two minesweeper boats, the Okhotsk minzag, a floating battery, eight patrol boats, two torpedo boats, a submarine, 17 transport and 16 special landing ships received from the USA, 2 self-propelled barges - only 64. And they landed not a full-fledged division, but only part of it
            Quote: ammunition
            What ? Messer combat radius of 50 km or what?

            Airfields are slightly removed from the coastline :)))))
            Quote: ammunition
            Do not confuse modern MCPs with divisions and brigades of World War II.

            You couldn’t even understand that a division can be “put” into cubic cargo holds of a bulk carrier only after being compressed in cubes ....
          2. +1
            22 June 2018 00: 04
            Quote: ammunition
            And do not give examples of the "landing" of the Americans and the British. Here is an example of our landing.

            The landing on Shumsha, in fact, was almost the blackest page in the history of the Pacific Fleet. It was only then that the chief purovtsy varnished it - so that there were no uncomfortable questions, how could it be so goofed at the very end of the war.
            The landing and defense forces were approximately equal (do not compare our first echelon with the general forces of the Japanese on all nearby islands). But the command of the Kamchatka defensive area gathered in this landing all the jambs of the airborne troops of past years.
            They managed to carry out the artillery preparation 2 hours before the landing - by waking the Japanese and giving them time to take up positions.
            The draft of the ships designated for transporting the landing was too great - and the landing began to land far from the coast at depths greater than human height. As a result, more than a hundred people simply drowned before reaching the shore. Along the way, the landing party drowned all the radios except one. Communication with the ships was almost lost.
            The landing landing began to move inland, completely ignoring the two Japanese batteries flanking the landing zone. Result - artillery fire sunk 7 landing ships and 3 boats.
            It was not possible to organize the unloading of artillery - it was corny nothing to reload from those very deep-seated landing ships. Only 1 battery of the "forty" was delivered to shore. Communication with the ships was carried out by a single walkie-talkie. The landing party was saved by the fact that the Japanese tanks that attacked them several times made their way through the existing PTR landing forces.
            Japanese aviation inflicted a fire-fighting system on DESO ships. Let me remind you that the landing was on August 18. On the 10th day of the war, the Japanese stormed the ships with impunity.
            The fact that the paratroopers were in a position is evidenced by the fact that two of them, Pyotr Ilyichev and Nikolai Vilkov, repeated the exploit of Matrosov. And the technician-lieutenant Vodynin and sergeant Ryndin threw themselves under tanks with bundles of grenades, destroying enemy vehicles at the cost of their lives. The total loss of the landing was 416 dead, 123 missing (mostly drowned during the landing), 1028 wounded. The Japanese lost 369 killed and 649 wounded.
            And we were very lucky that this landing was already after the official surrender of Japan. Otherwise, the Japanese would fight to the last.
            If the Germans landed in Britain like that, the limes would be only too happy.
          3. 0
            22 June 2018 00: 25
            Quote: ammunition
            1) What? Messer battle radius 50 km or what?

            During the Battle of Britain, 109s pilots over England had fuel for 20 minutes of battle.
            Quote: ammunition
            2) The Germans could have naval assault during non-flying weather.

            Gorgeous. Royal Navy will only be happy with non-flying weather. Limes only in the Canal zone and southern bases had 5-6 cruisers and 50 EM. For the German DESO, this is more than enough.
            Quote: ammunition
            The main thing will land, like ours in the Kuril Islands.

            Having landed paratroopers overboard at a depth of 2,5 meters, drowning all the walkie-talkies, leaving all the artillery on the ships and not providing suppression of coastal artillery, nor covering the airborne assault? One can only dream of such a lime.
            The British, unlike the Japanese, did not have the emperor's rescript on surrender. But there was a fleet - and nearby. The time before the approach of the British fleet, the Germans will unload a maximum of the first echelon and supplies for a couple of days (and go into traffic jam on the beach). And then the limes will be staged "Fight at Savo Island. British Edition." smile

            By the way, besides Shumshu there was also the Theodosian landing. Sudak landing. South Ozereyka. Landing on the Sommers. Landing forces 1944 on the islands of the Vyborg Bay. Mercule. Do not want to remember them?
  28. -1
    21 June 2018 02: 01
    An interesting article makes you think again.
    I believe that no one disputes the fact of the Great Victory of the USSR and the heroism of the Soviet people. However, we living at this time, excuse me, do not deserve any side even a glimpse of this heroism. We, their modern descendants, to put it mildly - the losers, have lost a great country, to the delight of the descendants of Hitler-Goebels. That's why they are perplexed - the USSR collapsed in 1991 in three days, and they could not do anything in 4 of the year, and besides, they lost everything. Wonders!
    We ourselves would not hurt to know - why? In order not to believe in miracles ourselves and not to lose the country ... as in the 91 year.
  29. 0
    21 June 2018 04: 07
    - I read "all kinds of comments" here ... -Well, well ... -that is what happens ... -that the famous victorious T-34 tank .. -this is a completely worthless tank .. or what ..? - Who can clearly say something about this ...?
    1. +1
      21 June 2018 07: 44
      But to write an article with a similar name ("useless T-34" or "Blown thirty-four") people are somehow embarrassed ... feel
    2. +1
      21 June 2018 07: 48
      Quote: gorenina91
      this is what happens ... -that the famous victorious tank "T-34" .. -this is a completely worthless tank .. or what ..?

      Why useless? Very “worthless”, it’s just that he was never an invincible prodigy by head superior to the enemy’s technique. He had undoubted advantages (a powerful 76-mm gun, well suited for suppressing field artillery, anti-tank missile, infantry with HE shell) rational angles of inclination of the armor. But here with the review - trouble, and, most importantly, the T-34s of the first series had low technical reliability.
      But when he had a little security, then he became the best tank of the war. Not because the almighty, or best of all in everything, but because he began to meet the tasks of the tank troops and was relatively simple to manufacture
      1. 0
        21 June 2018 08: 48
        - Personally, I once read somewhere that someone from the German leading generals (Guderian seems to be) spoke out about the fact that if he had tanks like the T-34 during WWII, then he It would be easy to solve many very complex strategic tasks without much loss ...
        1. +1
          21 June 2018 11: 23
          Quote: gorenina91
          that one of the German leading generals (Guderian seems to be) spoke out about the fact that

          https://topwar.ru/4696-mif-o-neuyazvimyh-chudo-ta
          nkah.html
        2. +1
          21 June 2018 12: 24
          Quote: gorenina91
          - Personally, I once read somewhere that someone from the German leading generals (Guderian seems to be) spoke out about the fact that if he had tanks like the T-34 during WWII, then he It would be easy to solve many very complex strategic tasks without much loss ...

          Heinz usually wrote something similar after his tactical and operational miscalculations. Like, it's not my fault - it's all Russian wunderwaffe.
          And when everything went according to plan, Guderian wrote the exact opposite:
          The Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank can not be compared with the best examples of our tanks, made by us and repeatedly proved their advantage.
  30. 0
    21 June 2018 16: 57
    The author completely forgot about the offensive near Moscow from December 5, the 41st year, when the fascists first made it clear that the jokes in the East were ending. He also “forgot” about the unfolding partisan movement in the occupied territories, which violated the supply of the belligerent army, partially deprived of its reserves. And that was exactly, basically, from the 42nd year, in the 41st there were the first test steps, so to speak.
    Yes, the Red Army was inferior in tactical and strategic thinking, but the fascist Wehrmacht was not suitable for us in the fighting spirit, and not only on the battlefields, but also on machine tools in factories, kulmans in the design bureau, behind the “plow” in the field.
    In the end, this formed the basis of our victory. Yes
    1. 0
      21 June 2018 18: 48
      Quote: K-50
      Yes, the Red Army was inferior in tactical and strategic thinking, but the fascist Wehrmacht didn’t suit us in terms of fighting spirit

      Well, it’s you in vain - if it weren’t good, we wouldn’t have been with them until the 45th. The Germans are excellent soldiers in every way. They fiercely and skillfully fought to the very end, when they already had no chance. Remember the same Paulus - when they surrendered, a significant part of his army could no longer walk independently. Stalingrad? We stood there to death, but the Germans too ... went forward without regard for losses. The fight to the death, the equals fought with the equals ... Do you know how their penalties fought? an anti-tank mine in your hands - and forward, onto the streets, toss Soviet tanks under the tracks. And after all they went and threw up. Neither French, nor British, nor Polish, nor American soldiers were suitable for them. Therefore, our ancestors had to tinker with them properly. The enemy was terrible and the victory was not easy, and you should not belittle it by the "lack of fighting spirit" among the Germans.
      1. 0
        22 June 2018 06: 21
        In the end, all the same, our soldier won, including by the power of the Spirit. hi
      2. 0
        22 June 2018 09: 59
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The enemy was terrible and the victory was not easy, and you should not belittle it by the "lack of fighting spirit" among the Germans.

        Yes, victory was not easy for us.
        Yes, the enemy was brave.
        All the more our fame.
        © K. Simonov
      3. 0
        22 June 2018 11: 12
        Germans are excellent soldiers in every way.


        Not a fact.
        Somehow I immediately recollect Hoch See Flotte’s rage to Britain ...
        I remember the attempt on Hitler's army officers in 1944-m ...
        when fate turned its back on them ...
        Yes, a lot of things come to mind ...

        Yes, and in the defense of Berlin, everything was not so clear ...
        That is, yes, very good soldiers and officers, but it is not necessary to absolutize it.
        1. 0
          22 June 2018 14: 18
          Quote: Olezhek
          Not a fact.

          Fact
          Quote: Olezhek
          Somehow I immediately recollect Hoch See Flotte’s rage to Britain ...

          It’s strange. You are reminded of what is not. Well, generally speaking, sailors serve in the fleet, not soldiers. And yes, how will the Russian ground forces behave during the defense of Moonsund in 1917, will we recall?
          Quote: Olezhek
          I remember the attempt on Hitler's army officers in 1944-m ...

          And what did you not like here?
          Quote: Olezhek
          when fate turned its back on them ...

          To them, “backside”, fate did not unfold in 1944, but much earlier, OKW understood this in 1942.
          Quote: Olezhek
          Yes, and in the defense of Berlin, everything was not so clear ...

          And what was there, that we did not have in 1941?
          Quote: Olezhek
          That is, yes, very good soldiers and officers, but it is not necessary to absolutize it.

          It is difficult to understand what you mean by the word "absolutize." The German soldier was almost inferior in strength to the Soviet one, leaving far behind the soldiers of other countries
  31. 0
    21 June 2018 18: 52
    In 1942, the war was just beginning for the Germans. The Russians simply harnessed for a long time. And resources were only growing by 1942. So the fall of Stalingrad and even Moscow would not have affected the course of further battles in favor of the USSR.
    1. +2
      21 June 2018 20: 09
      So the fall of Stalingrad and even Moscow would have no effect on the course of further battles in favor of the USSR.


      And you are an optimist ...
  32. +2
    22 June 2018 14: 52
    Well, tell me, what are these "innumerable reserves" hiding behind Stalingrad? Ural region, which before the war was much less developed than later? And a rare chain of Siberian cities? Against all of Europe? What kind of tales about the "innumerable reserves"? In reality, the country stood on the edge of the abyss, on its very, very edge. Or did someone expect to break the Wehrmacht in Tobolsk? In the Kazakh steppes, dashing blow of the masses of irregular cavalry?
    I would like to know. what in the end did the author want to say in his opus? feel And for starters, at least to hear how we ended up in Berlin in 1945? Accidentally? Brought by the wind? Or is it communist propaganda, and there was nothing, but we were simply invited to visit, and we were almost ungrateful to dismiss from joy, and out of gratitude Berlin was almost dusty ?! The author, you are by chance not from Novy Urengoy - there seems to be an epidemic there, and you need to carry out the whole complex of measures to eliminate this infection! wassat
  33. Alf
    0
    22 June 2018 22: 34
    Alexey RA,
    With what joy ?
  34. 0
    23 June 2018 10: 33
    Thank. An interesting look at events
  35. +1
    24 June 2018 09: 05
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Therefore, our ancestors had to tinker with them properly. The enemy was terrible and the victory was not easy, and you should not belittle it by the "lack of fighting spirit" among the Germans.

    And because half of the Germans are Germanized Western Slavs.
    Regarding the article - this is hutspa and manipulation.
    There you can argue in every paragraph.
  36. 0
    25 June 2018 05: 24
    But what about the memories, diaries, letters of the German invaders? Everyone from the field marshal to the soldier speaks of the fierce resistance of the Red Army from the first days of the war. “Three French campaigns are better than one Russian” - this saying appeared already in 41, and not in 42 or 43. I don’t understand at all what the author leads to, what conclusion he draws from his thoughts
  37. 0
    25 June 2018 16: 33
    “From scratch” it is impossible to create an extremely powerful army in six years in a country that, at the beginning of a long journey, is starving and falling apart, purely theoretically.

    The Wehrmacht version 1939 was not created from scratch. Germany had the best army in the world in 1918. And as technical equipment and as people. Only 1918 years passed from 1933 to 15. Tens of thousands of pilots, submariners, artillerymen, officers of the German army with the experience of the First World War did not go anywhere. The best military industry in the world, too, has not been lost for 15 years.
    So in 1939 the Wehrmacht launched a new war from the position of world leader, which he inherited from the German army in World War I.
    And the Soviet Union received as a legacy the worst equipped and trained army among the great forces of the participants in the First World War.
    .
  38. 0
    4 July 2018 20: 28
    The Germans did not just lose at Stalingrad. They crashed there. Together with the Allies, their losses amounted to 1,5 million killed and captured. In fact, the war was lost precisely at Stalingrad. Next was the rout and agony. Although the whole of Europe fought for the Germans ...
    1. 0
      8 July 2018 16: 49
      Quote: Dzafdet
      The Germans did not just lose at Stalingrad. They crashed there. Together with the Allies, their losses amounted to 1,5 million killed and captured. In fact, the war was lost precisely at Stalingrad. Next was the rout and agony. Although the whole of Europe fought for the Germans ...


      It doesn’t matter, and far from all of Europe fought for the Germans. In 1943, the number of German troops in Italy and the Balkans alone was approximately 600 thousand people.
      1. 0
        8 July 2018 17: 27
        Quote: NF68
        In 1943, the number of German troops in Italy and the Balkans alone was approximately 600 thousand people.

        .As you know, by June 22, 1941, in addition to German formations, 29 divisions and 16 brigades of Germany’s allies — Finland, Hungary and Romania — were deployed along the borders of the Soviet Union. That is, 20% of the invasion army was made up of German satellite troops - in other words, every fifth foreign soldier who crossed the Soviet border at dawn on June 22, 1941, was NOT GERMAN. Let us remember this figure - for even in April 1945, all the allies of the Red Army (Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czechoslovak, French) made up only 12% of the number of Soviet troops operating at the front. And if we take into account the fact that very soon (literally in a month and a half) Italian and Slovak contingents will join the German troops - then by the end of July 1941 the troops of the German allies will already account for a good 30% of the invasion forces
        Was the front in Africa the decisive front for Germany ?? the Balkans in 1943 ?? France under Diepp ?? Or did almost the entire Wehrmacht and satellites fought on the Eastern Front against the USSR, because other allies of the USSR, as it were, did not very much burn the desire to fight against Hitler Having entered Europe only - the Second Front was opened on June 6, 1944 as a result of the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy - the Norman landing operation, codenamed "Overlord"
        As of January 31, 1944, the following digital data are available on the number and nationality of "German" volunteers in the SS troops:
        Norwegians - 5 878 people
        Danes - 7 people
        Dutch - 18 473 people
        Flemish - 6 people
        Wallon - 2 people
        Swedes - 601 people
        Swiss - 1 people
        French - 3 people
        English - 432 people
        Irish - 115 people
        Scots - 107 people
        In total - 46.521 people, that is, a full-blooded army corps.
        And how many of them remained forever in the fields and swamps in Russia? All of Europe truly fought against us, both with the human contingent and with all its industrial power.
        1. 0
          8 July 2018 20: 08
          For Germany, in the 1941-1942's, the war on the Eastern Front and the Atlantic were more or less equally important, since even then in Germany they began to fully realize that the contradictions between the USA and the BI were not as great as the Germans had hoped for. But an even bigger blow for the Germans was the fact that the United States with BI soon after the German attack on the USSR suddenly decided to help the USSR. The fact that the US military-economic potential is much more powerful than the German Germans began to understand at the end of the 1940-beginning of the 1941-years. As for the European allies of Germany, only the Finns of the Hungarians fully laid out, and the real value of the rest of their members of Germany was significantly lower than what the Germans had hoped for. Only Germany’s urgent help in North Africa and the Mediterranean did not allow the Allies to powder Italy. The Hungarians would not be very opposed to grab another piece of the territory of Romania, Franco generally politely, then firmly sent Hitler and all other allies showed themselves not much better. Even to land on the bloodless Malta, which was right next to Italy, the Italians did not dare even though the Germans would help them in this operation. From the British, Italian warships ran surprisingly with hares and cheetahs quickly, although in theory the Italian Navy in the Mediterranean was stronger than the British. In the end, it turned out that Germany’s hopes for its allies were too high. It is possible that if Hitler before the start of WWII could have suggested that his allies in Europe would be much weaker, it is quite possible that Hitler would not have decided to start WWII. And raw materials in Europe were still too small, even for Germany alone. First of all, this concerned liquid fuel, copper, nickel, tungsten:



  39. 0
    13 July 2018 16: 38
    “Almost won” - is this serious?
    Russia almost won the Croats and almost became the champion of 2018. And VAZs are almost Mercedes.
    Before that, the Germans almost defeated Great Britain in the 40th.
    And the author almost knows the story. By the way, the author has already traveled to the Bundestag to apologize that the Russians (almost all the nationalities of the USSR) prevented them from winning?
  40. 0
    15 July 2018 01: 06
    Germany could hardly rely on a “victory” in the war with the USSR. Just because of the huge territory that would have to be controlled. And an example they already had before their eyes: Japan won almost all the battles in China, captured the largest cities and ports ... And still did not win the war, but only got stuck. Therefore, the German command in the war against Russia (USSR) was very cautious and set limited goals: the defeat of the army and control over the western part of the territory. Even the movement to the Urals was not discussed.
    Could Germany implement the Barbarossa plan? probably could. But she could not, and the failure became apparent literally two weeks after the outbreak of hostilities. This is the same problem that did not allow the Germans to take Paris in the First World War: the infantry was not able to even just go the necessary distance. So the German plan of 1941 provided for an average movement of 20 km per day ... For 2.5 months. You can? the German infantrymen couldn’t ...