We know german skill let them fight for so long, but wat allowed them to win battles on the eastern front with so many tanks against them, could someone please explain german panzer tactics on the eastern front?
On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-OberscharfĂŒhrer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knightâs Cross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I
Better trained men, better equipment, better tactics.
_
Most likely at the onset of BARBAROSSA, the Germans had not only more battle experience from the western campaign than did the Soviets, but they had more stragetic panzer innovators, like Guderian.
The Soviets were also decimated by the Stalinst purges of the army in the 1930âs, so they were deprived of some of the personnel, particularly in the officer corps, who would have been of considerable value when they were invaded and the operations that followed. The Soviets were largely unprepared in June 1941 for the German invasion and their lack of readiness, tactical inexperience for most of the army resulted in their first months of defeats. But, they were quick to learn and apply innovations as well as anyone else. The operations in Finland gave some of their General Staff [those above ground, anywayâŠ] some basic concepts of how to run a modern war and how to be more effective in winter combat operations.
It is likely that German tactics, strength in numbers and material were not solely the keys to their success as it was the advantages of the Germans coupled with the inadequacies of their opponents militarily and diplomatically.
As the Germans practiced Blitzkrieg tactics which were based in the Keil und Kessel tactics the Russians practiced Defense In Depth tactics where they gave up ground for time. The Russian tactics utilized older out out date weapons but seasoned troops they held the German Lines at stratigic points then fell back to the next defensive line reinforcing it each time they fell back.
eventually dropping back to the strongest line between Lenningrad and Stalingrad.And adding the additional reinforcement of newly trained troops and Georgi Zukovs siberian troops.along with the new T-34 and 20,000 pieces of new artillery. It was at this point that the German Army specially the German 6th army were doomed the Soviet Army was getting all it needed and the German Armys supplies were stretched to the limit.
The German Army incurred such losses that the estimates proclaim 2 years of factory production were lost in Stalingrad alone. From that time on on the Russian Front the Germans only won one small battle near kiev and the Russians were on their way to Berlin.
How serious were the Russians (they cleared minefields by walking through them) The Germans called them MAD BARBARIANS. My two favorite battles on the Russian Front were KURSK and the battle of the SEELOW HEIGHTS.
Cavalry Gunner
The one really big factor is nothing to do with either tactics or strategy, but how they trained their officers: mission command. Just about every other army in WW2 gave their officers specific instructions of what to do and how to do it. The Germans just told their officers what to do and left it up to them how to do it, within reason.
This may seem a minor difference, but itâs absolutely critical once you remember the maxim that no plan survives contact with the enemy. Making decisions at the lowest level meant the German forces reacted far, far quicker to events, which in turn acted as a major force multiplier. It is worth noting that early in the war when the political commisars held sway the Russians were slaughtered, managing only to put up little ineffective resistance. Once the political commisars who didnât have a clue were shuffled out of the way and competent military officers took over, the Germans were stopped dead and later annihilated.
It is also worth noting that just about every major military force adopted the principles of mission command after the warâŠ
Good but rarely âsaid out loudâ point by pdf27. 
The more complex and unsure the situation was, the more likely germans came out of it as winners in eastern front. Lower rank officers were trained to look at the bigger picture, so when necessary, they could step up and take responsibility.
It is also worth noting that just about every major military force adopted the principles of mission command after the warâŠ
I just canât resist to comment with almost identical phrase: âIt is also worth noting that just about every major military force adopted the way finnish artillery worked with the fire control chart after the warâŠâ
_
Itâs genetic that germans make good soldiers ;).
What is today known as germany has been overrun from all sides over and over again in the past 2000 years (Völkerwanderung etc.). This usually went along with some fighting and usually only the winner mated, hihi
Just kidding, though :mrgreen:
The panzers were also on the defensive, fighting from concealed or defensive positions when possible. So, of course exposed, advancing Soviet armor was going to suffer much higher losses, as was the case with the Western AlliesâŠ
Untrue. In Normandy the total tank losses were less that 2:1 in the German favour. The myth of multiple Panzer kills lives onâŠ
The German retreat turned into a desperate flight along what became known to the Germans as âthe death roadâ (Todesgang) between the villages of Chambois, Saint Lambert, Trun and Tournai-sur-Dives. Late on August 21, after French priest AbbĂ© Launay pleaded with the German field commander, the remaining German troops in the pocket were ordered to surrender.
how it really was âŠ
Although perhaps 100,000 German troops succeeded in escaping the allies due to the delay in closing the gap, they left behind 50,000 prisoners, over 10,000 dead, and the road practically impassable due to destroyed vehicles (including 500 tanks) and bodies. Among those not captured were one army commander, four corps commanders and 14 division commanders, who would escape the pocket. The German forces lost 10,000 guns and vehicles. The Canadians also suffered heavy losses, with over 18,000 dead or wounded.
The failure to capture greater numbers of German troops was questioned by some commanders and postwar writers. The formation and reduction of the pocket was a great Allied success; there was however a sense, even as the pocket closed, that the prisoner haul could have been more.
The US forces pushing northward were halted due to an inter-Army boundary line. Bradley did not request that the boundary be moved (not an uncommon procedure) nor did Montgomery suggest it. Although there was a legitimate need to avoid friendly-fire incidents, and fast moving units might have fallen victim to friendly fire if link-ups were not carefully coordinated, a boundary change would not necessarily have led to fratricide. Bradley also stated that he preferred a strong force able to hold in place rather than a weak one, over-extended in an attempt to seal the pocket. However, his eastward attack by XV Corps even before the pocket was closed belies this position.
With strong personalities on both sides of the question the controversy was quite heated, especially postwar as competing memoirs were published
The only thing German equipment did was provide the allies with tons of scrap metal. The Russians probably used the thousands of Destroyed German tank hulls to melt down and make T-34s and JS-3âs
Oh and the pictures below⊠LEFT American soldiers leaning against a DESTROYED KING TIGER the the pic on the right are DEAD GERMANS⊠So much for MYTHOLOGY
falaise gap.bmp (223 KB)
destroyed germans.bmp (140 KB)
