Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.

View Poll Results: Would Operation Zitadelle have been a success if Hilter had allowed it to continue?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 33.33%
  • No

    20 66.67%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Zitadelle

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    ... dealing with any Soviet attacks by manouvre warfare. However, Hitler was never going to allow this...
    I just have to point out three things with this common claim:

    1) Wehrmacht's static defence in the northern sector did great and stopped Soviet attacks year after year.

    2) There really wasn't any extra fuel in Third Reich economy for any massive manoeuvering.

    3) It took months and months (often year or more) to get those mines etc behind southern-sector frontline working and producing (natural) resources for Germany. With manoeuvering soviets could have get a hold of those areas and destroyed everything - again - causing months/years of setback - and that would have not been worth handful of destroyed soviet divisions - especially since static defence often worked well (see point #1).


    And don't get me wrong - I'm all pro manoeuvrable warfare :-)


    _
    Last edited by alephh; 11-07-2007 at 04:48 AM.
    Amazing Metal Detector Finds.
    Hand-picked World War II and Third Reich news every day.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alephh View Post
    I just have to point out three things with this common claim:

    1) Wehrmacht's static defence in the northern sector did great and stopped Soviet attacks year after year.
    I can't agree.
    Indeed the most amazing succesfull tactical defence of Germans was in zone of Group Armies Centre.
    When the Mainstain in the 1943 after the collapce in Stalingrad had reached the great succes to prevent the soviet offencive ( operation Uran) it was a one of the best case of manoeuvrering defence.
    Later in Eastern Europe Germans army Southern Ukraine also tryed to use it - however it had only limited succes due to the increase of soviet mahanized mobility in the 1944-45.
    To the contrast in the nothern sector where the natural conditions and the relief of land was favorable for the defence - the role of manoeuvrering defence falls to the zero.
    While the Group armies North together with Finns in the 1941-43 had very limited succes ( they were blocked near the Leningrad by the Red Army) the Group armies Centre and South were much more achievements firsly due the possibility to widely use the manoeuvrering defence.
    Later finns hold succesfull resisted in 1944 due to the relief of the land and manies marsh - but not due to the mobility or manevrability of finns army.
    Last edited by Chevan; 11-07-2007 at 06:32 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    When the Mainstain in the 1943 after the collapce in Stalingrad had reached the great succes to prevent the soviet offencive ( operation Uran) it was a one of the best case of manoeuvrering defence.
    Indeed, it's one of the greatest operations of WWII.

    But it do not change the fact that he consumed a lot priceless fuel doing so. And the progress in the rear areas were badly damaged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Later in Eastern Europe Germans army Southern Ukraine also tryed to use it - however it had only limited succes due to the increase of soviet mahanized mobility in the 1944-45.
    Agree. Increased soviet mobility was a big factor in their favor - against any kind of defence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    To the contrast in the nothern sector where the natural conditions and the relief of land was favorable for the defence - the role of manoeuvrering defence falls to the zero.
    Yes, more north you go, less the tanks can be used. But trucks still moved pretty well and enabled fast-paced operations (exluding the very northmost of eastern front, where the very few roads tend to run from north-to-south direction making offensives west-to-east pretty useless).

    You have to remember, attacker moves slower, but so does the defender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    the Group armies Centre and South were much more achievements firsly due the possibility to widely use the manoeuvrering defence.
    And in doing so they consumed Germany's precious fuel-reserves. Which was stupid if you look at the bigger picture, considering that you could have done the same with static defence - the fuel could have been used to train pilots, tank-crews, increase production, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Later finns hold succesfull resisted in 1944 due to the relief of the land and manies marsh - but not due to the mobility or manevrability of finns army.
    Not true: Finns lost all the land during the first week or two of the attack. After that Finland formed static defence line (Tali-Ihantala) in open solid ground - excellent tank terrain (no forests, no marsh) - and beat the hell out of the attacking Red Army.

    Which exactly points out that even in 1944 it was possible to completely stop superior mobilized Soviet tank attack in open terrain filled with roads with static infantry defence.


    _
    Amazing Metal Detector Finds.
    Hand-picked World War II and Third Reich news every day.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alephh View Post
    Not true: Finns lost all the land during the first week or two of the attack. After that Finland formed static defence line (Tali-Ihantala) in open solid ground - excellent tank terrain (no forests, no marsh) - and beat the hell out of the attacking Red Army.
    Just do not think i wish touch you national proudness
    However this is rather strange to hear that the Red Army meeted the "hell ' in Finland in 1944.
    It seems for me you rather overestimate the finns front.
    Actually the fins STATIC defence was a great however the Red Army did not even try to do a hell like they did in for instance in a Berlin.
    Besides do not forget that finns were practiclly fully demoralized and crashed too :already 25 august the Finns ASKED the condition of Soviet peace.

    Which exactly points out that even in 1944 it was possible to completely stop superior mobilized Soviet tank attack in open terrain filled with roads with static infantry defence.

    _
    No alephh.
    This just prove that you could stop the Red Army TEMPORARY to ask the peace.
    You could not stop it if the USSR,Britain and USA have devided the sphears of "liberations".
    If you doubt - look for instance to the Hungary, or Chehoslovakia that fought further even then the Germany.
    The Red Army cupruted the Buidapest 3 month and finally took it.
    So if the Finns did not ask a piece for the Soviet conditions - they inevitably was "liberated" soon or later
    But finns are not hungurians - they did not played under Germans rules. They were relatively independent.
    Thus the clever finns saved its country.Very resonable. moreover after war they were really neitral.
    Last edited by Chevan; 11-07-2007 at 07:51 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    however the Red Army did not even try to do a hell like they did in for instance in a Berlin.
    One question - if Red Army didn't really try to capture Finland, why Tali-Ihantala was THE BIGGEST BATTLE in the history of Nordic countries?


    _
    Amazing Metal Detector Finds.
    Hand-picked World War II and Third Reich news every day.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alephh View Post
    One question - if Red Army didn't really try to capture Finland, why Tali-Ihantala was THE BIGGEST BATTLE in the history of Nordic countries?
    Well Alephh the WW2 had a lot of BIGGEST BATTLES in a history.
    I/m not doubt that the Tali-Ihantala was a biggest FOR Nordic countries who had ONLY limited participation in the WW2.
    However i wish to notice you again- it was far from a great battles for the Red Army ( like battles for Stalingrad, Kursk , Berlin, Budapest and ets....)
    Simply becouse the North front was a SECONDARY in the WW2- neither Axis nor Soviet side did not realised the such great operations like they did in the Central or Southern directions.
    The War in the North was relatively calm.
    In the 1944 the Soviets have got all what they want from finns - they captured back all the territories in Karellia ( so the bother of the Peace treaty 1940 was restored )
    The Red Army had no any REASONS to continie the assault - the finnland interned all the of Germans troops.
    Besides do not forget about allies- as i/ve told you befor - in the Tehran in 1943 conference Stalin had the agreement with UK/US about the fate of Finland.The conditions of Finns peace were developed and presented for the Ruswelt and Churchill ( and they fully agreed with that except the one point - the summ of postwar finnish contributions for the damage of USSR).
    So it was not a surprice that Red Army did not continue the attack in the outhumn of 1944 - the finns have realised all of the conditions ( and it was reasonable).
    Finland has no such strategical geographic position ( like for instance Poland) for the USSR- so the independent Finland was a best chouse for all of us.( Look for instance for the contemporary Poland - the rusophobian policy and rhytoric of "former slav brother" is disgusting).
    But if you want to listen my appreciation for the finnish ability to resist for russian - yes they really know how to do it( especially in ice Hockey)
    Last edited by Chevan; 11-07-2007 at 11:54 PM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: Zitadelle

    maybe in march...and catch russians off guard...maybe..but too wait till july drain the army..was crazy..and to call it off....they should instead after mainsteins victory at kharkov...held a line from the baltic..in the north and south..and regrouped...for year or so...and let the russians attacked if they wanted too

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    315

    Default Re: Zitadelle

    For me it would be success only if there wasn't second front opened by the western allies by the operation Husky ( which was not likely to happen as Churchil , Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that there is huge need of opening a second front ) . Second thing i agree that Hitler mistake was in using still unreliable and untested weapons as Panther, Ferdinand and others which resulted in less Tigers which maybe was decisive ( i don't mean that Tiger was the N1 tank or impossible to destroy but the most crews already knew it and it was tested in battles before ) .

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: Zitadelle

    Totally agree with Ivaylo 2 nd front dashed all hope of victory. sam davis

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •