Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (6) « First ... 4 5 [6]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romanian contribution to the shortening of the war
Iamandi
Posted: May 12, 2005 06:27 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



Neah! I don't had in mind this things. I just asked if were chances to rezist more than 200 days. Just that.
Sure, even if we keep russians more time this don't result in a succes, the war was lost by Hitler briliant mind, not by his allies and vasals. Of course, Mussolini had his part of the game result.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
mabadesc
Posted: May 12, 2005 06:16 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



QUOTE
I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river.


That's an interesting statement, Florin, and you may have a valid point. Could you please elaborate on your theory?

Thanks.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 12, 2005 10:17 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (mabadesc @ May 12 2005, 06:16 PM)
QUOTE
I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river.


That's an interesting statement, Florin, and you may have a valid point. Could you please elaborate on your theory?

Thanks.

Interesting, but what part of the Siret?
The russians advanced to Cernauti. The Romanian attempt to prepare defenses on the Siret/FNG line left the Oriental part of the Carpathians exposed.
From Cernauti the russians could have entered Transylvania through the Mestecanis or Ghimes passes or thru Maramures. If the romanian forces were concentrated on FNG, and would have been pinned there, what chances were there to hold on to Transylvania?
How many days? 200? Isnt that too much?
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: May 13, 2005 01:50 am
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 13 2005, 04:17 AM)
The Romanian attempt to prepare defenses on the Siret/FNG line left the Oriental part of the Carpathians exposed.
   From Cernauti the russians could have entered Transylvania through the Mestecanis or Ghimes passes or thru Maramures.

The Carpathian Mountains (referred to here as the Oriental Carpathians) were not undefended, as Hungarian troops were preparing for defense in their sector for quite a long time.
In concern with the Rumanian troops, it would have been a formidable natural defense line against the Red Army.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 13, 2005 01:51 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 13, 2005 04:11 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ May 13 2005, 01:50 AM)

The Carpathian Mountains (referred to here as the Oriental Carpathians) were not undefended, as Hungarian troops were preparing for defense in their sector for quite a long time.

I did not assume they were undefended [edit - I assumed the main romanian forces would have been withdrawn to FNG line]
Yet other situations are known where the soviet army managed to punch thru well defended chokepoints and overwhelmed them.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 13, 2005 01:23 pm
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: May 20, 2005 04:27 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1866
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (mabadesc @ May 12 2005, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE
I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river.


That's an interesting statement, Florin, and you may have a valid point. Could you please elaborate on your theory?

Thanks.

Napoleon said once that a river should not be trusted as a serious obstacle when a defense is organized.

Thinking of the Eastern Front, the Axis was able to cross all big Russian rivers, up to Volga. Then the Russians were able to cross back their own rivers while coming back toward West.
The fortifications built along Siret may incur some difficulty during a crossing attempt, but I think it was easier than passing over the Carpathians, which happen to be wider along Moldavia, and in 3 parallel rows of crests (along Moldavia).
As I previously wrote, real mountains were an experience not encountered by the Russians in their offensive period, before August 1944. (They used mountains in Caucas for defensive.) However they reached the tip of Slovakia in July 1944, using a wide mountain gorge.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: June 16, 2005 05:40 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Florin @ May 20 2005, 04:27 AM)

Napoleon said once that a river should not be trusted as a serious obstacle when a defense is organized.

Thinking of the Eastern Front, the Axis was able to cross all big Russian rivers, up to Volga. Then the Russians were able to cross back their own rivers while coming back toward West.
The fortifications built along Siret may incur some difficulty during a crossing attempt, but I think it was easier than passing over the Carpathians, which happen to be wider along Moldavia, and in 3 parallel rows of crests (along Moldavia).
As I previously wrote, real mountains were an experience not encountered by the Russians in their offensive period, before August 1944. (They used mountains in Caucas for defensive.) However they reached the tip of Slovakia in July 1944, using a wide mountain gorge.

Mountains and mountain passes arent all on the defender's side, neither are rivers.
They both offer advantages but disadvantages also.
A mountain pass cannot be held indefinitely in front of an enemy with superior artillery and air support. Also, it depends on the actual characteristics of the moldavian passes.
Also important was the level of forces available to Antonescu. Were there only 20 division operational, like I read?
PM
Top
Valium
Posted: April 13, 2011 02:49 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 3047
Joined: April 13, 2011



Due to strategic position, oil reserves, and, why not the amount of soldiers(who should count double:germans lost, allies gained), I think 6 months is not an exagerate period
PMEmail Poster
Top
bansaraba
Posted: April 13, 2011 03:56 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 184
Member No.: 2196
Joined: July 20, 2008



Maybe this might share some light on the subject. From Cazanisteanu C., Ionescu M. E., Sub semnul victoriei, Editura Albatros, Bucuresti, 1985.

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1436/23august.png
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (6) « First ... 4 5 [6]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0449 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]