Did the Russian Winter Defeat Germany?

Originally posted by Justinian ^ Sarmat-- have you ever read Raus' biography entitled Panzer Operations?  I do not know whether it is comical or just pathetic reading about the superiority of the soviet tanks compared to everything the germans possessed.  Like how an entire regiment was held up because ONE KV-1 tank was astride its supply line and how it took like 12 anti-tank guns just to damage it, even that not destroying it.  Shows how unprepared the germans were throughout most of the war, improvising everything from beginning to end.  Man they sure would have been screwed if the soviets were anywhere near the level of competence they had become by 45'.

Originally posted by Justinian ...Though I was under the impression the T-34's made up the majority of the soviet tank force at the beginning and throughout the war.  Perhaps you could enlighten me?   Also, an excellent point on how the germans adapted much of the T-34 design components for their own tanks like the panthers etc.  The german generals who faced them were especially eager to see their own tanks like T-34's especially with the sloped armor, thick armor and large caliber cannon. ...

The T-34 and KV-1 had only just started mass production before the war.  The vast majority of Soviet tanks 'in the field' when the Germans attacked were earlier, lighter, models such as the T-26 and BT's.  However, with the massive losses the Soviets quickly suffered, and with ongoing production concentrating on the newer models, the Red Army's tank forces were quickly 'converted' over to the T-34's, which became the 'workhorse' AFV.

Although the Germans did consider a virtual 'copy' of the T-34, they actually opted for their own design (the Panther) to give them a qualitative advantage.  The Panther was really a much heavier tank (about 45 tons vs. about 30 tons), with much heavier thicker armour and much for effective armament.  The upgunned T-34/85 version is really more comparable to the Panther, although still significantly lighter.  The real problems with the Panther were that it was, as with many German tanks, 'over engineered', with problems coming up in combat because it was rushed into production and the fact that total production figures were much smaller than for the T-34's.

Originally posted by pekau Don't overpraise the T-34s. While they were indeed among the finest tanks in WWII era, the poor means of mass production caused Russian tanks to break down quickly. The Soviet armor units became the finest in the world after the battle of Kursk.

Edited by Tyranos - 02-Oct-2007 at 19:25

Germans could have overcome the problem, but yes... the Russian winter did halt the advance. Against popular misconception, Germans did not have waves of advance war machines. Many supplies were still transported by horses in the invasion. Cold winter easily wiped out the horses and cutting off the means of German supply lines. Even some jeeps stopped functioning due to cold weather, and the environment changed so drastically that armor units often had difficult time advancing. This provided Russians what they needed the most; time.

Originally posted by Crystall I have seen this question adressed in another topic, but I wanted to make my own post about it.   I grew up hearing that the invasion of Yugoslavia/Greece delayed the German attack for 6 weeks or so and it was the reason the Germans lost in the Eastern Front. Now I have started to come across others who say this is just propaganda from what Hitler said, and what the West took as the truth.   What do you guys think? Was the winter as important as many historians say it was, and lead to the eventual (or quicker) defeat of the Nazis?

Six week delay due to the Balkans effort - largely myth.  The fact is that the Germans were more concerned about the conditions being ideal for the intial attack.  Barbarossa was predicated on the assumption that a 'knock out' blow at the start would trigger a 'collapse' of the Soviet Union, and that a long campaign would not be necessary.  Thus, Barbarossa would not have been started until the ground was completely dry from the Spring thaw.  The operations in the Balkans delayed things a couple weeks perhaps, but definitely not 6 weeks.

To suggest that the winter was THE deciding factor is surely wrong.  The fact is that the Germans had not planned on a long campaign.  As they drove towards Moscow they were getting further and further out at the end of a 'shoe string' supply line.  Meanwhile, they were still facing tough resistance from the Red Army, who was being reinforced and was close to their own supply lines.  The initial 'frost' actually helped the Germans resume their offensive, as the earlier mud had reduced their offensive to  a 'crawl'.  No doubt the extreme winter weather hurt the Germans, who were not as well prepared for it.  However, it did also cut both ways - to some extent it also caused problems for the Soviet counterattack.  Also, the German defenders formed 'hedgehog' defensive positions - i.e. relatively small 'fortified' positions with all around defense - centered on some village that provided some shelter.  So while the Soviets were better prepared for the winter, they were more often forced to operate in the 'open' while the Germans had some shelter from the elements while on the defense.  Bottom line is that the Germans were losing strength, unable to replace their losses and at the end of a supply line stretched to the breaking point while facing an enemy force that was close to its supply source and was being reinforced.  A 'reverse' was inevitable given the situation, and although the severe winter weather played a part, that was not the only or even the biggest factor.

Originally posted by konstantinius To these add the desperate, heroic, and unexpected (by the Germans) Soviet resistance (another German miscalculation, they thought Russia is going to go down as easily as France and Poland) and you have a situation anything but bright. There's absolutely nothing "bright" into thinking that you are winning  while in essence you're coming closer to defeat with each and every day.

Originally posted by konstantinius German oil had different viscosity so no, the oil was not the same in German and Russian tanks. Russian knew their weather,  Germans didn't and they ran into all sorts of trouble because they had "counted their chickens before  the eggs hatched", as they say.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by konstantinius Ahh, they came so close...   You seem to be really sorry for them.

I sort of am. But that's my own weight to bear...

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by konstantinius Yes. Both the KV's and the T 34's had wider tracks and a higher chassis that made movement in those conditions much easier. there are hardly any accounts of t-34's being stuck in either mud or snow and their ability to traverse inhospitable ground much outclassed those of the Germans'     In fact, this doesn't relate to my previous post very much. Some one already mentioned that winter actually made the roads more suitable for german tanks, because before they faced huge problems due to the absense of good roads and mud caused by the autumn rains.   There is just a kind of popular claim that "oil and gas got frozen in the german tanks" because the frost was so terrible and blah-blah-blah.   The thing was that the same oil and gas was in the Russian tanks, but for some misterious reasons they didn't freeze.   The conclusion is simple, there was no terrible frost that made German tanks obsolete "because it freezed their gas," otherwise the Russian tanks also would be out of the battle.

German oil had different viscosity so no, the oil was not the same in German and Russian tanks. Russian knew their weather,  Germans didn't and they ran into all sorts of trouble because they had "counted their chickens before  the eggs hatched", as they say.