Kiev Defence Operation as a factor

[AMVAS]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Amazing that 50,000 troops can be considered a fraction.

I meant 2,742,881 men in the RKKA in action
and the other figure was given for the units, which were not engaged in combat (inner and Eastern military districts)

[Owen]

Back to Keiv and the turn away from Moscow.
Brian Taylor in "Barbarossa to Berlin" Vol 1 says Hitler was right to defeat the enemy army.
He says Hitler spread his forces so thin they could only achieve one target at the expense of others. Germany lacked adequate reserves for both operations and targets they set themselves.

I still think they were right to destroy the army in the field. Once they had done that the the advance to the capital should be easy, look at France.

Just that the Russians in 1941 weren't the French in 1940.

[AMVAS]

Originally Posted by Owen D

...

I still think they were right to destroy the army in the field. Once they had done that the the advance to the capital should be easy, look at France.

Just that the Russians in 1941 weren't the French in 1940.

Yes, destroying of armed forces is more impotant than capturing territory. Indeed if there are no army taking territory is only a matter of time.

Regards,
Alex

[Owen]

Just got to this bit in Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian.
He says that he and most of the German Army were ready to go to Moscow and didn't want to turn towards kiev.
They expected him to advance with worn out units that needed re-enforcments, rest and repair.
What's more they took the XLVI Panzer Korps away from his Panzer Group which weakened his over stretched force.
Guderian gives a good explaination on why they should have carried on to Moscow.