War Without Garlands: Operation Barbarossa 1941-1942 (52 page)

Incidents such as these, combined with other frictions, could make life unbearable and fray nerves. Haphazard resupply had a negative impact on morale. Feldwebel Max Kuhnert vividly recalled a dark march by night, chilly and pelting with rain. The soldier’s tent-sheets had not kept them dry. An offer of hot tea, brought up by resupply with a rum included, ‘was music to our ears’.

‘It was a total disaster and an everlasting shame to our regimental field kitchen staff. Nobody could drink the stuff; not only did it smell evil, but it tasted revolting. Those clots. They had put tobacco instead of tea in the kettle, which was a very large one at that, to hold some 30–40 litres. Then they had put sugar in it, and the precious rum. For quite some time nobody forgot those agonising minutes of disappointment and anger.’
⁽⁹⁾

Even before the
Grosstransportraum
reached its 500km practical limit of operations, it was clearly labouring under cumulative pressures made worse by time and distance. Under the prevailing technical conditions of 1941 even the Wehrmacht, a moderately modern and certainly innovative force, remained dependent upon rail transport for strategic reach – just as their predecessors had in 1917.

‘Barbarossa’ planning was not decisively influenced by the existing road and rail network, but the need to keep operations supplied did influence route consideration. The initial concentration of divisions for the invasion could be achieved only by intensive use of the rail network in German-occupied Poland. Surprise was achieved by transporting the Panzer and motorised divisions last, a tangible indicator of the coming invasion if they had been moved prematurely. Once the offensive began, the fundamental problem was that Russian railways did not conform to the German gauge. Only the railways had the strategic logistic carrying capacity to reach beyond the 500km ‘trip-wire’ point.

Ideological arrogance leading to an illogical deduction of Russian weakness encouraged German planners to assume the Führer’s ‘kick in the door’ would suffice to bring down the Soviet Union like a stack of cards. A decisive victory was anticipated within the 500km belt immediately to the east of the border.
Eisenbahntruppen
(railway troops) therefore neglected to spend the winter of 1940 exercising the conversion of Russian railways to standard European gauge and were not adequately prepared. Priority was given to the more pressing task of extending the Polish network in anticipation of the German concentration. This resulted in an over-capacity, which was ironically applied to assist in the ‘Final Solution’ extermination of European Jewry. Even when the invasion began, railway troops had low transport priorities. Equipped with inferior and captured French and English vehicles, they were not able to keep up with the advance. Only one-sixth was motorised and two-thirds had no vehicles at all. They were poorly supplied with fuel by the army groups, and their signals and communications assets could only stretch to 100km.
⁽¹⁰⁾
Their numbers were not appropriate to the immense demands they faced. In recognition of this they were supplemented in early July with men from the German
Reichsbahn
(national railways).

As the army groups penetrated the Russian hinterland, the railway troops worked feverishly to restore damage and convert lines to the German gauge. By 10 July 480km had been completed but only about one-tenth of the load capacity required was reaching the army groups.
⁽¹¹⁾
Russian rail-track was lighter than German variants and supported by one-third fewer sleepers, which prevented running heavy locomotives over converted track. Soviet locomotives were larger, their water stations further apart, and many had been destroyed. Russian coal, it was discovered, could not be burned efficiently in German engines without German coal or petrol additives. Damage to signal equipment and rolling stock, bridges and engine sheds, and the elementary point that one double track can carry more capacity than two single ones, reduced German logistic planning figures to theoretical aspirations.

Resupply bottlenecks occurred at the exchange-transfer points between German and Russian railway gauges. A ‘catastrophic’ situation developed at Schaulen in Army Group North‘s area on 11 July, when instead of an anticipated three-hour turn-round, some trains took 12, 24 or even 80 hours to unload. Hopeless congestion resulted. Some trains were actually ‘lost’ in the confusion. Army Group North calculated it needed 34 trains per day (carrying 450 tons each) to meet operational requirements. The maximum achieved on only exceptional occasions was 18. Ninth Army, serving with Army Group Centre, complained it was receiving only one-third of its daily entitlement of trains in early July.
⁽¹²⁾

The majority of Soviet division deployments on the eve of war had, by necessity, been by train. Gabriel Temkin, serving in a Russian labour battalion shortly after the outbreak of war, had experienced the German Blitzkrieg through Poland at first hand. He noticed the difference in effect of Luftwaffe attacks on the Russian rail network:

‘In Poland the Luftwaffe had managed in the first few days, if not hours, of the war to disorganise the railway transportation system completely. This was not the case in Russia, fortunately. Because of the distances here (in Russia) and the lack of an alternative transportation system – there was little movement of supplies by trucks – having a functioning rail system was a sine qua non for the Red Army to retain its fighting ability.’

After air attacks, railway soldiers immediately cleared the debris and completed rudimentary repairs so that ‘trains were moving again, slowly, stopping quite often, but moving’. German logistic pressures were insignificant compared to those experienced by Russian armies enduring bottlenecks under relentless air attack the whole time. In addition, the Soviet rail network was engaged in the migration of whole factory complexes complete with workers. These were transported eastward as countless troop trains moved west. Temkin remarked that his mail continued to arrive from his fiancée even ‘during this chaotic time’. Despite being slow and sporadic the military postal service continued to deliver to the front. ‘The trains were moving,’ Temkin emphasised, ‘the freight cars often damaged and half-burned but moving.’ In the face of seemingly endless military reverses Temkin pointed to the value of small achievements: ‘to me it was an encouraging sign,’ he said.
⁽¹³⁾

The jump-off point for the projected final German assault on Moscow was over 600km from Brest-Litovsk, and little over halfway to Moscow. The German railway network was labouring even at this distance. Generalfeldmarschall von Bock, commander of Army Group Centre, estimated he needed 30 trains per day during August to replenish current consumption and build up stocks for the forthcoming Moscow attack. On average only 18 arrived, although he was promised 24. Even after the conversion of the railway gauge to Orscha and Smolensk by 16 August and other improvements, the objective of 30 trains per day was never achieved. Von Kluge, the commander of Fourth Army, declared on 13 September that ‘with growing distances, the army is almost completely dependent on the railways’. Although current consumption was met, the build-up of offensive stocks was less certain. ‘The army lives from hand to mouth,’ he admitted, ‘especially as regards the fuel situation.’ The Ninth Army commander was less compromising, commenting the following day that its transport ‘was insufficient to support the coming operations’.
⁽¹⁴⁾

Some progress was achieved in September but only limited stocks of
Verbrauchssatzen
(logistic ‘units’) could be amassed to support the pending offensive. It was not possible to amass the ‘buffer’ stocks desired: 27 trains were needed daily in September to shunt units into place and locate material forward. Only 16 could be mustered before 22 September, although 27 delivered up to 30 September, producing a limited build-up of stocks. OKW estimated 29 trains would be needed daily during October but could only confirm 20. It was anticipated that November and a cessation of activity due to winter conditions would lessen the requirement to a much reduced three trains daily in order to move winter clothing and equipment.
⁽¹⁵⁾

In any event it was not enough. Material shortages constantly featured in letters sent home from the front. Secret SS Home Front situation reports, monitoring the impact of these letters, referred to the concerns mothers and wives were expressing about the harsh conditions endured by their menfolk at the front. Supply shortages were a feature of correspondence during August and September, together with apprehension at the approach of winter. Observers reported
Feldpost
letters revealed ‘soldiers had to endure enormous difficulties because resupply, and with it the supply of combat troops, appeared very difficult’. Within weeks of the final offensive it stated, ‘relatives of soldiers serving in the east are much preoccupied today with the accommodation and supply difficulties of German soldiers for the coming winter’. This, in contrast to the very optimistic views expressed at the beginning of the campaign, was now having a cumulative impact. ‘Growing difficulties with resupply’ was a recurring theme, along with the ‘unimaginable huge reserves the Soviet Army possessed in men and material’. There was pessimism over ‘the almost certain likelihood of not achieving a decisive outcome in the foreseeable future’.
⁽¹⁶⁾

Army Group Centre was teetering on an intangible logistic tripwire extending some 500–600km east of the German border from north to south. Motorised transport was designed to keep the ‘fast’ Panzer and motorised divisions replenished, filling the supply vacuum created as railway construction units sought to close the gap and catch up. Generalmajor Gereke, the Chief of Army Transportation, estimated one railway battalion could change Russian to German track gauges at a rate of 20km per day. Smolensk had been reached, but not the capacities required to stockpile for the coming offensive. Army Group North, able to capitalise on the more sophisticated Baltic rail network, had already reported 84 combat incidents between its railway construction troops and stay-behind Russian troops, suffering 162 casualties in the process.
⁽¹⁷⁾

Overland vehicles, tracked or wheeled, did not offer a solution. The new offensive would start in the autumn with the prospect of worse weather than that already experienced during the closing stages of the battle of Kiev. OKH announced a deficit of 38,000 vehicles on 16 August. Panzer units were on average 50% short, with corps troops and headquarters already 25% down. Infantry divisions with comparably fewer vehicles, and mainly horse-drawn at that, had lost one-quarter of their motorised fleets. The mobile columns required to spearhead the final Blitzkrieg were between one-quarter and one-third below their previous capacity. This time there would be no surprise; the remaining vehicles were worn out and weather prospects were bleak.

The Panzer situation was serious by late summer. At the beginning of September 30% had been destroyed and 23% were under repair. About half of the Panzer divisions foreseen for Operation ‘Taifun’ had only 34% of their tanks in service. Panzergruppe 1, reduced to 50%, was to continue the advance in the south. Von Bock retained the three remaining Panzergruppen. Generaloberst Guderian’s renamed Second Panzer Army had been reduced to a 45% average even before the Kiev encirclement battles. Its 10th Division was at 83% but its 18th was down to 57%. After the battle Guderian’s force was reduced to 25% in addition to being badly located some 200km south of the Smolensk-Moscow axis. Its 9th Division – having begun the campaign with 157 Panzers – had only 62 tanks with 67 under repair. Overall the three Panzer corps forming Second Panzer Army (with five Panzer divisions) mustered 252 tanks. General Hoth’s Panzergruppe 3 was down to an average of 45% of its strength at the beginning of September and Hoepner’s Panzergruppe 4 to between 50% and 75%.
⁽¹⁸⁾

A feverish period of repair and transfer of reserve Panzers forward to the front was undertaken (125 of the 181 tanks available were already positioned at Orscha and Daugavpils). Repair was slow because major overhauls were still being conducted in the Reich. This necessitated a two-way additional journey to and from the front. Logistic difficulties further stymied the transfer process, so that the readiness states of the severely pressed Panzer force could only be raised a further 10%. Guderian’s Second Panzer Army, for example, had been promised 100 new Panzers: it received only 50 in time; the remainder were despatched to Orscha, 200km away, by mistake.
⁽¹⁹⁾
By 15 September, Army Group Centre had 1,346 serviceable tanks for the forthcoming operation; this was from the 2,609 the divisions theoretically had at their disposal at the outset of the campaign.
⁽²⁰⁾

Mal-location did not just affect Second Panzer Army, obliged now to advance north-east, an additional 100–200km, instead of due east along the Smolensk–Moscow road. Panzergruppe 3 had to relocate 600km from Leningrad via Luga, Pskov and Nevel to join Army Group Centre south-east of Velizh. Large numbers of Panzers and self-propelled guns broke down during the rapid three to four-day administrative march. Service support vehicles were obliged to move northward from the Panzergruppe assembly area to recover many of these vehicles, denying vital last-minute support to the remainder prior to the offensive. Artillery gun numbers were reduced as a result of half-track prime movers breaking down and a shortage of spare parts.

The logistic brake was applying remorseless attrition. ‘Panzergruppe 3’s main supply point in the Ribshevo area in no respect carried sufficient supplies to feed a far-reaching attack later on,’ admitted Oberst Hans Röttiger, the Chief of Staff of XXXXIst Panzer Corps. Fuel and ammunition were particularly short, as also spare parts for Panzers and artillery towing vehicles. On the eve of battle the corps possessed between 50% and 75% of its strength, about one to one and a half divisions. Its 1st Panzer Division was down to 90 Panzers, having begun the campaign with 154 tanks.
⁽²¹⁾
Army Group Centre was about to embark on the last thrust on Moscow, although it was over half way with 340km to go, with under half (48%) of its serviceable Panzer strength and without the benefit of surprise.