Barbarossa halted after Kiev: Opinions?

but that said he invented the concept of casement assault guns (which were employed with great success and used for decades after the war)

I'll have to ask you to explain just what you mean by that. If you mean he invented turretless gun armed armoured vehicles, the French had done it with the St chammond and scheneider in 1916 and there were countless interwar designs that used casemated guns.
 
but that said he invented the concept of casement assault guns (which were employed with great success and used for decades after the war)

I'll have to ask you to explain just what you mean by that. If you mean he invented turretless gun armed armoured vehicles, the French had done it with the St chammond and scheneider in 1916 and there were countless interwar designs that used casemated guns.

the st chammond was a non functional vehicle

Manstein's concept wasn't just the turretless part; it was the squat low profile which differentiated it from other designs of the past; making it great for infantry support and ambushes; it represented a near perfect balance of armor/mobility/firepower

the stugg was a brilliantly balanced and effective vehicle; if you exclude German over engineering on some elements of the drive and track layout it could be said to have been more balanced and cost effective than even the t-34
 
lead a lightening advance towards leningrad, crushed everything in the crimea without any panzers,

In the Crimea he primarily benefited from Lev Mekhlis's criminal-level incompetence. And even then the Soviets secured their second (IIRC) Dunkirk of the war in evacuating most of the Sevastopol garrison. Wars are not won by evacuations, to be sure, but they damn well are lost by failure to capture armies.

Manstein in the first period in Leningrad was a subordinate to Ritter von Leeb, and his role in the Soviet Second Siniavo Offensive nowhere produced results that guaranteed strategic victories for Nazi Germany.
 
In the Crimea he primarily benefited from Lev Mekhlis's criminal-level incompetence. And even then the Soviets secured their second (IIRC) Dunkirk of the war in evacuating most of the Sevastopol garrison. Wars are not won by evacuations, to be sure, but they damn well are lost by failure to capture armies.

Manstein in the first period in Leningrad was a subordinate to Ritter von Leeb, and his role in the Soviet Second Siniavo Offensive nowhere produced results that guaranteed strategic victories for Nazi Germany.

the initial repulse in the crimea happened before Manstein came to take over the 11th army and could be squarely blamed on Rundstead for not diverting 7th panzer and wiking to encircle the prekop troops; instead sending just the understrength and exhausting liebstandarte

manstein's buzzard op was brilliant; infantry only and he stampeded a russian force 2x as large as his own out of the peninsula and took 60k prisoners (not bad for no panzers).... the crimean campaign was probably the best handled series of actions in manstein's career given his resources vs the enemy's

the soviets then compounded their mistake and reinforced sevastopol which manstein took by storm capturing or killing another 100k men; with only 1 weak tank division

sinyavo is a manstein victory... the orders before the 11th army got there were to capture leningrad; however, the russians lauched a gigantic offensive (2/3 as large as mars) prior to manstein's troops even arriving; they arrived; got into a pitched battle before they could even dig in, yielded little ground and inflicted 5 to 1 losses... not mars level decisive defensive success but still not bad either; i put any battle where the germans do better than 3 to 1 and don't yield any important territory into the strait victory column
 
Early stugs

the st chammond was a non functional vehicle

Manstein's concept wasn't just the turretless part; it was the squat low profile which differentiated it from other designs of the past; making it great for infantry support and ambushes; it represented a near perfect balance of armor/mobility/firepower

the stugg was a brilliantly balanced and effective vehicle; if you exclude German over engineering on some elements of the drive and track layout it could be said to have been more balanced and cost effective than even the t-34

So I'm guessing you never saw a picture of the 1921/4 French prototypes for assault guns by FCM, FAMH, Renault, etc. Make sure you check out the FAMH model. Short barrel 75mm in a casemated, angled front armour, twin MG in a small turret for closeup defence, etc...
Maybe Manstein did not read the trade magazines, no wait, German officers in the 20s did read a lot, didn't they?
 
More stugs

the st chammond was a non functional vehicle

Manstein's concept wasn't just the turretless part; it was the squat low profile which differentiated it from other designs of the past; making it great for infantry support and ambushes; it represented a near perfect balance of armor/mobility/firepower

the stugg was a brilliantly balanced and effective vehicle; if you exclude German over engineering on some elements of the drive and track layout it could be said to have been more balanced and cost effective than even the t-34

And there is of course the Skoda S-I-d of 1935 that went into limited german use as the PzKpfw 32 (j) after they had been adopted by yoguslavia and captured. Sure it was a little small, but scale it up by using a medium tank as a base and you have a stug.
 
Even more stugs

Even the conservative Americans got on the game with their M1921/22/T1 series. The earlier one is the most stugesque, so maybe the concept was ageing by then.
And if you count paper only projects, the stug idea was pretty much a common concept on military magazines in the 20s.
 
the initial repulse in the crimea happened before Manstein came to take over the 11th army and could be squarely blamed on Rundstead for not diverting 7th panzer and wiking to encircle the prekop troops; instead sending just the understrength and exhausting liebstandarte

manstein's buzzard op was brilliant; infantry only and he stampeded a russian force 2x as large as his own out of the peninsula and took 60k prisoners (not bad for no panzers).... the crimean campaign was probably the best handled series of actions in manstein's career given his resources vs the enemy's

the soviets then compounded their mistake and reinforced sevastopol which manstein took by storm capturing or killing another 100k men; with only 1 weak tank division

sinyavo is a manstein victory... the orders before the 11th army got there were to capture leningrad; however, the russians lauched a gigantic offensive (2/3 as large as mars) prior to manstein's troops even arriving; they arrived; got into a pitched battle before they could even dig in, yielded little ground and inflicted 5 to 1 losses... not mars level decisive defensive success but still not bad either; i put any battle where the germans do better than 3 to 1 and don't yield any important territory into the strait victory column

The Crimean victory in practice had rather less to do with Manstein and more to do with Hitler deciding to make this the decisive axis of the German advance, while it was Mekhlis's mistake that made the course of the offensive possible. Manstein exploited it brilliantly but it's not to his credit in particular.

And to call Siniavo a Manstein victory is ridiculous. He was supposed to launch an offensive his "victory" meant he was incapable of ever launching. That's only a victory in the sense that Pyrrhus of Epirus was the greatest general of the Pyrrhic war. To be strategically outgeneraled to the extent that Mr. Marty Tzu could not convert this into Northern Light is not a sign of victory unless the sole arbiter is that of statistics, in which case it's less military analysis and more treating war as a mathematics thesis.
 
Pretty pictures

General Estienne was one of the great concept originators on armoured warfare. Let's credit the Stug concept to him for the 1921 requirement for a turretless infantry suport vehicle. It led to this:

famh-1924_01.jpg
 

elkarlo

Banned
I'd guess they launch continuous under-resourced offensives as in OTL, but if the Germans are allowed what-ifs then the Soviets must be as well. Whatever way the Soviets went, Germany desperately needed to rationalise its forces. The winter battles placed the maximum number of skilled specialists (artillerists, engineers etc) and rear-echelon equipment (transport etc.) in harm's way for the minimum of combat value.

Something that isn't mentioned as of yet; German air superiority. This would spoil most attacks until the rains, and storms grounded the Luftwaffe. Be hard to attack while being bombed and strafed.
 
The Crimean victory in practice had rather less to do with Manstein and more to do with Hitler deciding to make this the decisive axis of the German advance, while it was Mekhlis's mistake that made the course of the offensive possible. Manstein exploited it brilliantly but it's not to his credit in particular.

And to call Siniavo a Manstein victory is ridiculous. He was supposed to launch an offensive his "victory" meant he was incapable of ever launching. That's only a victory in the sense that Pyrrhus of Epirus was the greatest general of the Pyrrhic war. To be strategically outgeneraled to the extent that Mr. Marty Tzu could not convert this into Northern Light is not a sign of victory unless the sole arbiter is that of statistics, in which case it's less military analysis and more treating war as a mathematics thesis.

The strategic parts of Siniavo had nothing to do with manstein

step 1 hitler orders the 11th army north with the objective of the capturing leningrad
step 2 11th army entrains
step 3 russians launch an enormous offensive against troops in place whilst 11th army is still en route
step 4 11th army arrives into the middle of an already pitched battle without half of their equipment even getting into place yet
step 5 manstein hurls the 11th army into the battle and stop the russians dead in their tracks and inflicts 5 to 1 losses on the attacking russians
step 6 desperate situation in the south calls manstein away and a ton of the 11th army's supporting equipment and airpower so the preposed attack on leningrad is called off

please explain how that is either a pyriac victory or strategic failure on manstein's part?
 
The strategic parts of Siniavo had nothing to do with manstein

step 1 hitler orders the 11th army north with the objective of the capturing leningrad
step 2 11th army entrains
step 3 russians launch an enormous offensive against troops in place whilst 11th army is still en route
step 4 11th army arrives into the middle of an already pitched battle without half of their equipment even getting into place yet
step 5 manstein hurls the 11th army into the battle and stop the russians dead in their tracks and inflicts 5 to 1 losses on the attacking russians
step 6 desperate situation in the south calls manstein away and a ton of the 11th army's supporting equipment and airpower so the preposed attack on leningrad is called off

please explain how that is either a pyriac victory or strategic failure on manstein's part?

The strategic failure should be obvious: he was called to reverse the disaster and make the offensive aimed at Leningrad possible and this he completely failed to do. The Soviets, however, would once again walk into a buzzsaw in the long, sorry, sordid history of Red Army failures in both Leningrad and Siniavo.
 
The strategic failure should be obvious: he was called to reverse the disaster and make the offensive aimed at Leningrad possible and this he completely failed to do. The Soviets, however, would once again walk into a buzzsaw in the long, sorry, sordid history of Red Army failures in both Leningrad and Siniavo.

the strategic failure had nothing to do with him or the 11th army... the russian offensive started before the 11th army got there and the situation was already intense; there was never an opportunity to launch that offensive because the assets hitler sent didn't arrive till after the Germans lost the initiative... if you want to say Hitler allowed for a strategic failure; ok I guess, but Manstein won the battle handily

if anything the 11th army would have never broken through or captured the city anyway, even if the situation allowed for them to make an attempt and they likely would have taken high losses in trying, instead they fought a well handled defensive battle and inflicted a blood bath on the Russians whilst not yielding any ground

that battle can be safely filed under the German victory
 
the strategic failure had nothing to do with him or the 11th army... the russian offensive started before the 11th army got there and the situation was already intense; there was never an opportunity to launch that offensive because the assets hitler sent didn't arrive till after the Germans lost the initiative... if you want to say Hitler allowed for a strategic failure; ok I guess, but Manstein won the battle handily

if anything the 11th army would have never broken through or captured the city anyway, even if the situation allowed for them to make an attempt and they likely would have taken high losses in trying, instead they fought a well handled defensive battle and inflicted a blood bath on the Russians whilst not yielding any ground

that battle can be safely filed under the German victory

Given I said that "The Soviets, however, would once again walk into a buzzsaw in the long, sorry, sordid history of Red Army failures in both Leningrad and Siniavo." I think it's pretty clear we agree that the battle tactically wound up favoring the Germans, but strategically Northern Light was never launched, so......
 
Given I said that "The Soviets, however, would once again walk into a buzzsaw in the long, sorry, sordid history of Red Army failures in both Leningrad and Siniavo." I think it's pretty clear we agree that the battle tactically wound up favoring the Germans, but strategically Northern Light was never launched, so......



had they launched northern light, they would have failed; in hindsite we know this for sure... they likely would have taken disproportionate casualites

instead they fought a defensive battle and achieved a victory

so the canceling of northern light (or the russian pre-emptive offensive) was a strategic winner for the Germans versus what would have happened had their plan gone ahead

however, given the other events going on at the front, the proper label might be German tactical victory, strategically indecisive/insignificant
 
had they launched northern light, they would have failed; in hindsite we know this for sure... they likely would have taken disproportionate casualites

instead they fought a defensive battle and achieved a victory

so the canceling of northern light (or the russian pre-emptive offensive) was a strategic winner for the Germans versus what would have happened had their plan gone ahead

however, given the other events going on at the front, the proper label might be German tactical victory, strategically indecisive/insignificant

Had they launched Northern Light, the USSR would have not enjoyed the results of it even if they win a "strategic victory" of this sort. The whole Siniavo battles to me are basically the Axis-Soviet War's Monte Cassino, not really an example of the USSR at its best any point in them.
 
Had they launched Northern Light, the USSR would have not enjoyed the results of it even if they win a "strategic victory" of this sort. The whole Siniavo battles to me are basically the Axis-Soviet War's Monte Cassino, not really an example of the USSR at its best any point in them.

northern light could only have happened if hitler didn't fuck around with the 11th army's orders for two weeks, and some sort of other POD that lets manstein wrap the crimea faster (maybe he is given the leibstandarte or some other reserve formation earlier in the campaign that allows him to complete it faster)

even in that context though, the 11th army wouldn't be as potent as they where at sevastopol; although they planned to have the seige train (with 170 cannons larger than 155mm).. all of their air support had been sent to stalingrad so they would never be able to get away with the same sorts of tactics that worked at sevastopol; and with the guns alone and little to no tank support they where not going to break into the city at all, let alone take it by storm

northern light was a strategic disaster waiting to happen; canceling is a big positive for the germans
 
Top