deisive battle of the Eastern front in WWII

[Zuni]

Some say Moscow, 1941, Others say Stalingrad in 1942. Kursk in 1943 is a contender. Which of these three battles do you think turned the tide?

I say Stalingrad, because although Moscow was a defeat for Germany, they came back in the Spring. They never recovered after the triple blows of Autumn 1942---Stalingrad's encirclement, El Alamein and the Torch landings which eventually trapped the Axis armies in Africa.

But at Kursk, the Germans were able to mount their largest post-invasion offensive on the eastern Front, but it seems to me they were doomed to lose from the beginning

[JohnKleeb]

1. Stalingrad without a doubt

Same reasons as ya.

[slor]

2. Most historians will say...

Stalingrad. However, I will suggest that Hitler's decision to halt the Panzergruppe advance near Moscow and Leningrad, so that majority the of troops could catch up was THE most important blunder Hitler could make (thankfully). This gave the Russian forces precious time to consolidate their forces and fortify their defences. It also set the stage for Russia's best weapon, Winter, to come into play. As for Stalingrad, I would have ordered it surrounded, given the impression that it was enclosed by superior force, at least on the landlocked sides, and then worked to secure any points of reinforcement from across the Volga. Hitler's racists beliefs in the supposed inferior capabilities of the Russian forces also helped undermine his strategy. At the conclusion of the war, many german soldiers would certainly agree that the Russian soldier was the most fierce opponent on the battlefield. And I would argue that the Russians fielded the BEST tank of the war, the revolutionary T-34.

[Zuni]

3. The T-34

was a fantastic weapon. The Panther, by many accounts was a better tank, but never produced in the huge quantities that the T-34 was produced in.
The Russians overall had the best tanks---the T-34, T-34/85, the KV and the JS assault artillery vehicles.

I think Hitler's biggest blunder in the Barbarossa campaign was taking Guderian's Panzer Group 2 away from Bock's AG Center and diverting it to join hands with Von Kleist and PanzerGruppe 1 around Kiev in AG South. This took the momentum away from the decisive push to Moscow and the Germans were never able to recover the momentum lost

[slor]

4. The Panther was based on...

the T-34. That is why I call it the best. The angled armor actually increases the armor thickness while also increasing the chances of glancing blows and deflection without adding weight with real additional armor.The Panther was also difficult to manufacture and production numbers where no where near the 40,000+ T-34s made. Other Axis nations wanted to produce the Panther, as well as other German weaponry but the german's always declined. It should also be mentioned that 65-70% of the german heavy tanks were destroyed not by other tanks but by artillery or air attack,testimony to their extraordinary defensive abilities. As far as overall, the T-34 reigns supreme in my opinion, though in a one on one, I'd rather be in any of the german heavy tanks. Your other points are right on the mark as far as slowing the advance of his forces and sucking out the momentum.

[Zuni]

12. Rocket firing RAF Typhoons

cleared the German heavies in Normandy. They were the best tank killing airplane of the war, followed by the P-47 and the P-51

[slor]

5. I just saw that you live in Baltimore...

Have you been to the Aberdeen proving grounds to see all the captured tanks?

[Zuni]

11. I live in Annapolis, actually

but I have been to Aberdeen. I have a good friend who lives in Aberdeen and we have checked out the exhibits there before.

[solinvictus]

6. Stalingrad

Stalingrad because it cost the Germans precious veteran infantry and forced them into a two year fighting retreat. The Kursk Salient was decisive in that Soviet experience blunted the German armored offensive and the loss of men and vehicles ended German mobility in the East.

[LanternWaste]

8. Battle of Moscow

I'm going with the Battle for Moscow. True, the Wermacht counter-attacked that next spring; and true, Rostov was the battle which illustrated the shattered myth of the 'invincible army', but the Batlle of Moscow gave something to he Soviet people they had lacked prior to that... morale. Up to that point, industry, arms and civilians had known only a strategic retreat (small, localized advances on a tactical scale notwithstanding).

Stalingrad was, according to Churchill, the "loss of strategic initiative". Yes, it shattered the 7th army and created a tactical manpower shortage on the eastern front, but in late '43 and early '44 when Speer began to allocate men and material from the civilian corp to the military, Germany actually had a net increase of forces.

I think that Stalingrad better illustrates the 'beginning of the end', however I think that the Battle for Moscow was it's catalyst.

Kursk was, in my opinion, inneffectual. All other things being equal, the Wermacht was already in the process of a strategic retreat and even had the German's won that battle, the net tactical gain would soon have been overwhelmed by superior numbers of Soviet men and material. At best, I think a German victory at Kursk would have delayed the Soviet's '44 offensive by mere months if not weeks and I don't think it would have any effect on the eventual calendar date of the destruction of Army Group Vistual and the final assualt on Berlin.

The wildcard in all this (to me, at least) is the question, "What would have happened had the Germans won the Battle of Moscow?"

I will quickly add, I'm not a professional historian nor an expert and my conjecture is based largely on simply reading different author's opinions and perspectives. My largest influence being, Paul Kennedy's, "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" in the section entitled, "World War Two and the Coming of a Bi-Polar World" which I recommend to anyone remotely interested in the realtion between arms, money and politics in the post-Renaissance world.

On Edit: Meant to reply to original question. Obviously, I need one or two more cups of coffee before I try replying to a post again <g>

[Zuni]

13. Rostov is where my grandmother is from

She survived the city changing hands several times during the war. Each side followed seizure with purges and terror. The germans deported her to work as a forced laborer as they evacuated Rostov the last time, in 1943. It was a horrible time.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. Stalingrad was the beginning of the end!

Kursk sealed Hitler's fate on the eastern front! Hitler was after the oil in the Caspian basin and in the middle east! Sound like anybody we know?

IMO the nonstop allied bombing in Europe and the loss of men and equipment in the USSR and the middle east, finally in the end put Hitler out of action! Spreading his equipment and men too far and trying to bite off more than he could chew nailed him!

Heavy industry in the US won WW II more than anything else, I believe! That's why it seems so counterproductive to me, for America to just sit back and watch our ability to produce being moved offshore piece by piece! Things like the US railroads, steel, automotive, ship building and aircraft industries beat Hitler on every front!

Greed is always a major factor to begin with when Empires fall! Governments who care more about 'What's In It For Me' than they do about their countries or their people invite doom! Selling out America's ability to produce and to thereby defend itself invites disaster as far as our national security is concerned!

Real Patriots don't do things to weaken their own country simply to grab 30 pieces of silver for their contributors corporate boards and CEOs IMHO!

[zx22778a]

9. My vote is for Kursk,

After Kursk the German army no longer had the ability to carry out serious offensive operations in the east. Just too many soldiers had been lost.

A good argument can be made for Stalingrad, which was certainly the beginning of the end of the German army.

The German army was way too overextended in the autumn of 1941. Any attempt to capture Moscow without waiting for non mechanized units would have really risked being surrounded and being cut off.

Hitler's big mistake was more political than military. He should have played the Ukrainians against the Russians. There was no love for Stalin in the Ukraine, they'd just been through a devestating famine brought on basically, by Russians confiscating food production. If Hitler had marched in as the liberator of the Ukraine, he could have gotten a lot of support. As it was, he treated the Ukrainian population as inferior Slavs and, in the end, the Ukrainian people hated Hitler even more than they did Stalin.

[Zuni]

14. not just Ukrainians

the Baltic peoples, Poles, Cossacks, Chechens, kalmyks---there are so many groups that were so brutally suppressed and longing for an end to Moscow's stalinist rule.

[leftofthedial]

10. Kursk

Kursk turned the tide

Stalingrad was the great symbolic victory and accelerated the German decline, but the eventual outcome was a foregone conclusin by then.

Moscow was also symbolic. Even if it had fallen, the Russians would have fought on.

Do not underestimate Leningrad, which ensured that the German's Russian Front extended an extra several hundred miles and guarded the Allies northern supply routes from Archangel and Murmansk.

But Kursk was a major ass whipping when the Germans still could have won the war.

[slor]

15. Recently discovered information shows...

that Stalin was ready to work out a deal with Hitler just prior to Moscow, so I believe had Hitler pressed the attack it would not have been certain for a Russian victory.

[Zuni]

16. really?

I think that Stalin was so desperate he might have but I have never heard this. Did he send out peace feelers? Was it a ruse?

[slor]

17. Zuni, as someone of Russian descent...

I find it hard to fathom your failure to mention the most produced and, as many germans on the eastern front would attest, the most feared plane,the IL-2 Sturmovik. Heck, it was nicknamed "Black Death" by the germans and was very effective in its main role, the ground attack. In fact, if you enjoy video game simulations, there is even a great flight sim developed by a Russian design team, with real aeronautical engineering skills, in honor of the plane. I have the game and it is without a doubt, the best flight sim ever, though it requires a good graphics card and powerful CPU. I actually built my most recent rig for the main purpose of playing the game with all the bells and whistles on.

[Zuni]

19. The Sturmovik

was not really all that good. It was not nearly as good as the Typhoon, or the P-48.
Russian pilots were also below western standards during the war, IN GENERAL.
Germans who went from East to Wst were often far more terrified of the Western Air forces, which were far more effective. And they were always there, everywhere.
Ge

[Zuni]

20. I disagree about the effectiveness(sitting ducks for flak guns)

of WWII era Soviet aircraft, which was far below that of the western airforces. The Sturmovik was heavy, slow, (these might be advantages in attack roles), had poor manuverability, often had mechanical failures, had none of the newest technology for aiming and bombing. Western attack planes like the Typhoon had far more advanced equitment, better manuverability and an ability to go in, fu-- sh-- up and then get out. Sturmoviks were sitting ducks for Flak gunners

I am interested in that game however. I love flight simulation and battle games.

[slor]

18. double post sorry