- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,919
- Reaction score
- 26,629
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Both these statements are misleading. German losses were in fact irreplaceable to a degree. The Germans were as early as November reinforcing their forward units with rear echelon troops. German veterans reported that their ranks were being filled with cooks, clerks, and truck drivers rather than trained riflemen. The Germany infantry corps in fact never recovered from it's losses in Barbarossa, as evident by the fact that the assault on Stalingrad was led by engineers, not combat infantry. The Germans had amassed almost 3.5 million men but had only ~350,000 men in reserve at home, versus the Soviets 14,000,000 military reserves at the onset of the conflict.
Germany was in fact losing from the moment they lost at the gates of Moscow, because it locked the Germans into a war of attrition that they were doomed to loose because of limited manpower reserves. The German response to this was to basically repeat their mistakes. In Case Blue and Operational Citadel they basically did the same thing as Barbarossa; launch a major strategic offensive with under strength forces against an enemy that was larger and more powerful than they realized. In all three instances, the result was catastrophic failure.
Couldnt have said it any better, thanks.
The reason the allies broke out of Normandy were because the Germans had nothing left. The best troops the Nazis had lay dead in Russia.