Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front

You are talking about Joseph Goebbels. Also, one doesn't necessarily need to be German to be able to speak it, just saying :P
As for the T-34, it is indeed overrated. It was crude, it was cramped, half of the gunners lost their arm apparently (I realise it's probably less, but I was just trying to prove a point).
If you want a reason why the T-34 performed so well against German tanks, well, here's one for you: German tanks didn't work in general because the oil in their motors froze.
I'm not trying to say that the T-34 was a rust bucket, but just as not each German is a Jew killing insane nazi, and just as not each Russian is a alcoholic communist, the T-34 wasn't the "z0mg uber god pwwnage tank" (sorry, I suck at slang). Did it outgun the German tanks, yes, to a large degree, it most likely did. Was the T-34 better on the Eastern front than the German tanks, yes, most likely. But here's something to take into consideration. The T-34 for a very large part of the war, fought on own ground. It fought on terrain, that was taken into account when it was designed. Of course it performed well. Also, they were produced in larger numbers (I think) than the German tanks.
What I want to see is a fair test to be done with both tanks. Also, 'historical' arguments like: "but Russia won the war and Germany had no tanks left so the T-34 must have been better" are complete and utter BS.

Sorry if the post is a bit fiery/enthusiastic, I'm a history student and I'm not particularly fond of it when in my opinion, History is being raped.

Cheers

Yes u told me that you were a history grad so i respect your opinions but you see Tico , the t-34 was a simple robust and easy to maintain tank , Its armor design was revolutionary and it could be easily produced in large numbers

I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth ;D)

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

as to my comments on jew killing nazis , i didnt say every german was a jew killing nazi , all i had said that Hitlers ideologies were followed by his men , the german millitary or the wehrmacht were soldiers they simply followed orders to believe or not to believe was not their concern

And as to werewolf i read abt his post on the German army patches, no one knows abt the ranks and patches so much unless he has seen it with his eyes


Cheers!!

Indeed, it was robust, easy to maintain and easy to mass produce, but does that instantly mean that it's a good tank?
I will of course agree with you that the T-34 had a revolutionary design, still though, fire at it in the right place and you can still crack it wide open (the place where the turret connects to the hull for example). Also, please note that your tank commander says: "the best tank we ever faced". This does not by definition mean that it's a good tank.

As for using a V12 engine from a World war I plane, I find that hard to believe, mostly because of the fact that mechanised flight was still a new thing and that to the best of my knowledge, planes were equiped with rotary engines, definately nog V12's.

Also, I didn't mean to say that you said that all Germans are jew killing nazi's. I just used it as a way of saying that people in general generalise stuff and that this, in my opinion, is also done with the T-34 :P

Cheers

"Whatever" ::) ::) , as to the engine thing i saw it on TV , thts why i tell you and now tht you say i remember i saw it on discovery too , if u ever get a chance to see tht particular show again , just confirm it

I just have to ask, AbhMkh; Why do you always comment on somone's nationality?

Hey no offense dude , i'm just a bit inquisitive , thats it nothing more ;D ;D ;D ;D

How is everyone here a history gratuate or expert etc.?

lol seeme , no tico had mentioned in a post afore tht he had studied history in college

AbhMkh wrote:
I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth ;D)

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.

Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.

Crezth wrote:

AbhMkh wrote:
I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth ;D)

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.

Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.

+1

(Off topic: BTW AbhMkh, I replied to your earlier post re: the patches on the other thread. Cheers ;) )

Sure T-34's armor, gun and in later war the reliability were very good but it had bad sights so shots over a long distance were not accurate, it had no radio(that's a huge disadvantage), and  only a 4 man crew(another huge disadvantage)

So we have a tank which was sure insane good in 41' but with the upgunning of the Mark IV it lost it's superiority

just to remind everyone talking about this topic, and those who might join us later on: the question, why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front, must be answered, and discussed, nothing more.... just make your own topic about it. the German forces had both major advantages and disadvantages, just like the Soviets. Although I'd like to say politics had nothing to do with the outcome, its the last thing i find true about the eastern front. however, what happend is unforgivable, and should never been forgotten.... nor underestimated, or changed. what happend on the Eastern Front, why it happend, and how it happend, that's our topic, not only the way both sides treated the civilians in the occupied territories.

just to make it clear: both Germans and Soviets didn't treated the civilians properly, the way i see it: whatever you say, whatever you do, these things happend, and even if you say one side committed the greatest crimes, both sides still committed crimes against humanity.

loatty wrote:
just to remind everyone talking about this topic, and those who might join us later on: the question, why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front, must be answered, and discussed, nothing more.... just make your own topic about it. the German forces had both major advantages and disadvantages, just like the Soviets. Although I'd like to say politics had nothing to do with the outcome, its the last thing i find true about the eastern front. however, what happend is unforgivable, and should never been forgotten.... nor underestimated, or changed. what happend on the Eastern Front, why it happend, and how it happend, that's our topic, not only the way both sides treated the civilians in the occupied territories.

just to make it clear: both Germans and Soviets didn't treated the civilians properly, the way i see it: whatever you say, whatever you do, these things happend, and even if you say one side committed the greatest crimes, both sides still committed crimes against humanity.

I spy with my little eye German apologism. The Holocaust was a far, far worse crime than the Soviet purges. You must factor in the motive - to this end, the concentrated removal of an entire ethnic group on the grounds of racial supremacy is dangerous in deed as well as thought. Calculated evil is worse than mindless evil, by and far.

Thank you Crezth! If it wasnt for my lack of word knowelge, I would of said the same thing!

+1

There comes a program on discovery channel : worlds greatest


so in the series worlds greatest tanks : t-34 is ranked no 4

It shows all in detail abt the t-34 , i think it might be available for download as well on torrentz im not sure of that

"evidence is far better than speculations"

And yes we are offtopic

so i conclude the main reason tht germany lost the war was due to "Herr Adolf Hitler"

cheers :) :)

Seeme, I do not claim to be an expert or anything like that, but I do study history at University level, so I like to read a lot about history and such. Also, the show "words greatest" if it is the one I think you mean, creates this list based on a rather small amount of people's opinions.
Also, it only shows basic specs, like "armour thickness" how thick it is is nice, but it also matters what kind of metal it is.

Anyway, on topic, I think that Germany lost the war because of a number of factors, to name a few: the Russian winter, the scorched earth policy, and Hitler's lunatic strategies.

Cheers

Tico, I wasent trying to offend you in anyway, and if I have, am sorry.

How can the T-34 be 4th??? With todays modern tanks?
I think the show meant The second world war, right?

I wasn't offended, sorry if I came across at being so :P
Also, yes, that's one of the problems that I have with that show in conjunction with its name. What it basically show, is a number of good or revolutionary tanks (in terms of design etc.).

Cheers

Yes the program includes both ww2 and modern tanks as well

first is the leopard tank

second is Abram tank

third is some Israeli tank

4th is T-34(the program mentions tht t-34 was what turned soviet russia from an agrarian economy to an industrial superpower)

That Israeli tank is the Merkava tank.
I disagree with the statement about the T-34, it wasn't like they build the tanks, and all of a sudden they had the factories to build them. They already had factories, it's just that they used a great many of them for T-production. So, ok, the the T-34 may have contributed to some production ideas, but saying that it is the reason that Russia turned into an industrial superpower, is overdoing it.
Anyway, hugely off-topic, let's get back to the question of this topic.

That cant be right...

Really german tanks such as the panther and tiger tanks could destroy MOST Allied tanks with one (tiger ) or two (panther) direct shots although there were many design flaws in the german tanks such as complexity and engine failure. Since the allied tanks were faster the axis tanks where out flanked and out produced.

Do not really on this information Ive just picked it up.

German tanks had an clear advantage in firepower and amourthickness, however... as said (many times, i think) before, the allied tanks did not rely on individual strength. Their balanced designs combined with their 'quantity for quality' doctrines enabled them to deploy overwhelming numbers of tanks against the German panzer's, and forcing the German forces to use all of their available resources and manpower, until they were no longer able to keep up with demands.
And to provide an answer to the T-34 discussion:
The T-34's design, although suffering from great flaws which mainly affected the crew, and therefore the T-34's overall efficiency in battle, included the usage of sloped armour and Christie's suspension, it was a revolutionary design and a great leap in the history of the tank.
Long story, much to discuss... i love to think about many things of WW2... but never try to tell me: 'it would have been better if (...)' or 'i know it was better to (...)

history is about the things the way they happended, please don't doubt their importance or impact.

the communism mean't mass production, and high numbers. us supplies saved the day many times and wherm was exhausted, loosing experimented soldiers and being too elitists on tech solutions ...

ussr was just too huge for wherm, thanks to mud winter and numerous people

let's play tripleA guys for the " what if" :-)

vietlord wrote:
the communism mean't mass production, and high numbers. us supplies saved the day many times and wherm was exhausted, loosing experimented soldiers and being too elitists on tech solutions ...

ussr was just too huge for wherm, thanks to mud winter and numerous people

let's play tripleA guys for the " what if" :-)

And by this you mean? I can't understand what your trying to say, mabey you could try to explain it to me?

He said that Soviet Russia was able a bump out massive waves of infantry and high amounts of military equipment.
Additionally, Russia was supported by the 'Lend and Lease-Act' which especially in 1942/43 helped to compensate the massive losses Red Army suffered in the early stage of war.

The Wehrmacht on the other side didn't have that many resources and kept loosing their strength, the experienced veteran soldiers. Unlike USSR, they relied on the often quoted "quality over quantity"-doctrine, a thing which could never function against a war vs Russia.
Also the harsh condition, like the russian winter and the mud stopped the Wehrmachts assault.

I hope I get what vietlord originally said.  :)


On the discussion: Seriously, I think the question shouldn't be why the Third Reich lost the war but rather why the whole war took 6 years. Why did Germany's leaders tried to stop the war in 1943, when it was clear that the can't gain a military victory? Why did they even start the war against Russia? Why were douzens of german cities bombed and burned to the ground?
That are just a few questions, which are in my opinion by far more interesting than asking why Germany lost on the Eastern Front. Just take a map and compare the sizes...

My guess is that if Hitler had been a sane man and not started the war with Russia, history would be a lot different. However, if Hitler had been a sane man perhaps he would not have been as successful in the beginning.

If he was sane he wouldn't have started a huge war with everyone, well maybe Austria.

why would he start a war with his own country?

He didn't start a war, he annexed it.

The problem of the Eastern Front was, or at least a large part of the main problem, it's vast size and the climate of the region. Also, Hitler expected the entire Red Army's force to collapse by using Blitzkrieg tactics. This worked very well in the early stages, and it seemed to become yet another great victory for Germany, but combined with the Russian winter and the German equipment, which wasn't suited for combat during such cold conditions in any way, the offense soon grounded to an halt. During that time, the Red Army could finally replace it's losses suffered earlier.
The Germans, still on the offense, successfully fought their way towards Moscow (although they were stopped about 30 km from the city itself, lol).
At this time, the German supply-lines had reached their limits, and the weakened forces were unable to mount an final attack to take Moscow. From this point onwards, the Russian troops, now with the fresh elite divisions from Siberia,  the German back, once and for all.

Fun fact I learned:

One of the reasons Germany didn't reach Moscow was when they we heading towards the city a large part of the Middle group headed south to capture soviet prisoners, with was a mistake because it took supplies and time away. In the modern time, you don't win wars by taking prisoners.

Where did you learn of that?

I heard it on TV then did some research.

Seeme
In September 41 group of armies should not grasp the center captured as you speak, and to finish an environment of two hundred thousand trd army in Kyiv region that most not to get to a trap between

ps
sorry for my english -use translater

1st of all, I have no idea what you meant.

2nd of all, 2 or 4 divisions went, not all of it.

If they did send a few divisions away to capture some Russians, it would've made the situation only worse, the divisions whom held positions near to Moscow were, like most of the forces at that time, exhausted and not ready for the winter.

Exactly, that's what am trying to say, the Germans made a mistake.

And it only worsened the situation for them :P

Yes, mistakes tend to do that.

1.) Germany didn't have enough resources to supply the offensive in the East.
2.) Germany ain't prepared to launch the 'Blitzkrieg' during Winter.
3.) Hitler fought too many fronts for his Armed Forces to manage , hold and secure since 1943. Just like North Africa, Italy, Russia and the Balkans.
4.) Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow were not the only situation why the Ostheer lost. Since the start of Barbarossa, Germany and the Soviet Union, made several encirclements, pockets of resistance and delayed objectives. This is one of the factors why the Ostheer delayed their attack on Moscow, thus, losing enough tanks, supplies and men on the Army Group Center.
5.) Hitler focused on three different and incredibly huge fronts, some of his General's suggestions were to take on Kiev first, then Moscow, and also signing a peace treaty to Britain first. (This is why the Luftwaffe weakened on all fronts)


And for my 'personal' reason why Germany lost on the East, it's because of his obsession to Stalin, basically, Hitler's quite a douche taking a not-so-important city with Stalin's name on it and cost him 1 army. Why not call him Obsessed?

Graybucket wrote:
And for my 'personal' reason why Germany lost on the East, it's because of his obsession to Stalin, basically, Hitler's quite a douche taking a not-so-important city with Stalin's name on it and cost him 1 army. Why not call him Obsessed?

First of all, Stalingrad was a major city at that time with a major river port if I'm not mistaken, calling it "not-so-important" is rather far from the truth in my opinion.
Secondly, Stalingrad's position on the Volga river enabled the holder of the city to have great control over whatever was transported over it.
Thirdly, you have to think beyond mere economical targets here. Losing a city which bears the name of your leader isn't good for moral.

Cheers

I think it comes down more to Hitler's OBSESSION with Stalingrad. Not allowing the army to fall back screwed him over.

well, Stalingrad was not at all an major strategically important goal, however, it was for both Hitler and Stalin THE icon of the soviet nation, and became an obsession for both, particularly for Hitler.

and about the winter, Barbarossa had to decide the war against Russia before the winter started, the entire operation was never intended to be fought during the winter, a very important fact to remember.

Stalingrad was indeed a important position. The city contained a lot of armament industry, and was controling the main road to caucasus. If the city had fall, soviets would have lost their control over the entire south of USSR. Moreover, germans initially wanted the city to be able to pass the Volga reliably, and then push even forward into soviet lines.

Stalingrad wasn't the key to the Caucasus. The city was important because of the transport shipping up and down the Volga and the fact it's capture would've secured the entrance to the Caucasus.

If i had to explain why Germany failed in the Eastern Front, it was that Hitler didn't want to admit that his army, no matter how advance he made it sound, was actually a overhyped, army that fueled on victories against armies that only had Calvary. If you think someone like Stalin was going to send horses against a tank army, then you were mistaken.

Now, when it came to equipment, Russia actually out did the Germans in most catergories, lets take a look.
-Il-2 Strumovik vs Ju-87/HS-219. How is this even a fair fight. The Il-2 was better armed, was more armored, and was more mobile than either German CAS plane.
-T-34 vs Panzer4/Panther tank. This is a matter of numbers versus quality. In peace, you can make the most elborate tank in the world, with loing lasting parts and what not. But if it isn't going to live that long, then you might as well give up. The Russians made millions of T-34, cause it was cheap and easy to build. And it wasn't half bad.
-Is-2/KV tanks vs Tiger tanks: Well, this was only a matter of time. If you compare the tanks, the Kv lost out to the Tiger only because it was a easy target to kill. But the IS-2 made it clear that tanks guns would decide the battle. An Is-2's cannon may not be as far ranged as the Tiger's gun, but it has more explosive power, which means it could break gun barrels, destroy enemy fortification, and render any army obselte fast.
-Katyusha vs German Artillery: This is a matter of doctrine. the Germans were focused on powerful shells landing accurately on targets. the problem is that anyone who ever worked with artillery knows that your optimal window of opportunity is 30 seconds. That isn't a long time. So what the Russians did was they made the cheap trucks, fitted a ton of rockets on them, and had them all fire on one position at once. This led to destroying entire lines of Germans.

So next time someone said, Germany should have won due to weapons, tell them to do their research on the Russian War machine.

Ps: The Germans could have defeated the US and Britain, but only just.

you're right with the major part of your post, but Germany DID face powerfull tanks before Barbarossa, the French tanks were superior when Germany attacked France. it's the combination of superior tactics and (at least) very capable equipment, combined with some luck (can't help it, has to be said), which gave the Germans those earlier victories.

but for most of your post, your quite right indeed:)

Just my two cents.

Something that can't be overlooked is that when Hitler decided to invade the USSR, the maps they used for planning were innacurate. Many of what were shown to be major highways on the map, were little more than barely servicable dirt paths in reality.

Also, the entire invasion was planned to take only 9 weeks. Fighting in winter was not even considered, so when winter rolled around, German soldiers had to resort to scavanging winter clothes from Soviet corpses.

Reasons why the Germans lost on the Eastern Front and eventually the entirety of the Second World War:

1) The very reliable and well-rounded T-34. Produced on such a large scale, outnumbered the Germans greatly.
Watch this:
Top Ten Tanks- # 1: The T-34

2) Russians and General Winter, bad idea. Finns, Germans, Swedes, French have all failed trying to tame Russia.

3) German overconfidence, and underestimation of the Soviet forces.

4) Lots of  tactical errors like the loss of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, the lack of winter equipment, and the very stupid failure at Kursk in 1943.

5) The sheer numbers and resources of the Red Army.

6) Germany waging a war against Great Britain which has the largest empire, the US which is the industrial and economic superpower of the world, and the Soviet Union with the worlds largest army.

Last edited January 9, 2011 at 1:35 PM by EasyWay91