Operation Barbarossa

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: shunwick




Good question. You could re-equip the minors though as HanBarca points out they would still not be as effective as the Germans. I would not allow both 4 German Army Groups plus re-equiping the minors. You would have to choose one option and I suspect most people would go for the extra German Army Group.

Best wishes,
Steve

Warspite1

I remember seeing a book many years ago - 3rd Axis, 4th Ally - about the Romanians in WWII. Never bought it, but this thread has reawakened my interest...off to Amazon now [:)]

Edit: maybe not - the cheapest price second hand is $194.00 [X(] - should have bought it when I saw it [&:]

I nearly choked when I saw the price. Go to library and order a copy.


What was the title? I can't find it on Amazon.

Best wishes,
Steve

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

I remember seeing a book many years ago - 3rd Axis, 4th Ally - about the Romanians in WWII. Never bought it, but this thread has reawakened my interest...off to Amazon now [:)]

Edit: maybe not - the cheapest price second hand is $194.00 [X(] - should have bought it when I saw it [&:]

I nearly choked when I saw the price. Go to library and order a copy.


What was the title? I can't find it on Amazon.

Best wishes,
Steve

Warspite1

I went to Amazon and put in 3rd Axis, 4th Ally.

[shunwick]

Ah, Third Axis, Fourth Ally £174.94. Amazon UK

You would really need to want that book.

Best wishes,
Steve

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Ah, Third Axis, Fourth Ally £174.94. Amazon UK

You would really need to want that book.

Best wishes,
Steve

Warspite1

Yes, a real pity - the reviews are excellent. I saw this in Foyles about 15-20 years ago I think, but it was a hard-back and, at about £30 or something, it was too expensive for me at the time....well it's certainly too expensive now...

[rodney727]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Only in a marginal way. I am ready for the attacks this will bring, but here goes. The Soviet Union defeated Germany. Utterly and completely.

Agreed. From June 1941 to the first months 1943 basically the whole German army was engaged on the Eastern front, and it wasn't enough.

That's stating the obvious outside the African campaign this was the only front during that time

[rodney727]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: shunwick



HanBarca,

That raises the interesting question of what would have been enough?

The three army groups that attempted it were pitifully short of reserves given the immensity of their task. Of course, Hitler and the German Generals were carried away with their own brilliance and they were also woefully in the dark about the Red Army (apart from what was stationed on the border) and the Soviet engineering capacity.

For the moment, forget about whether or not assembling a larger German invasion force was feasible or whether you can supply all of you army groups at the same time.

Let's assume that the Red Army is not taken by surprise (they need not have been - Stalin had enough warning of the impending attack). It's June 1941. What would the Germans have needed to push the Soviets beyond the Urals? Is it a single campaign? Do you plan on two or three campaigning seasons? What forces would you need?

Best wishes,
Steve

Warspite1

Very good question shunwick. Popular argument is that the Germans simply got their tactics wrong but otherwise could have won. I do not believe this is the case (remember the German Army got a HUGE early boost thanks to Stalin's moronic behaviour) - I think they were simply too short of men and equipment (particularly tanks).

Hitler was all about numbers - but in order to increase the number of panzer divisions available for the attack, he reduced the effectiveness of each when compared with the attack on France (I forget the exact details, but didn't they reduce the number of tank regiments in a dvision?). Given the difference in size between France and the Soviet Union, the German troops and, in particular tanks employed, were not increased in the same proportion.

Warspite1,

Most discussion centres around the question of could the Germans have captured Moscow in 1941?

Without Stalin's help, the answer is probably not. And then we have to ask would capturing Moscow have been enough? Again, I think not.

So let's assume the Soviet regime is robust and will never sue for peace. The Germans are generally more effective (superior training and they still have blitzkrieg as well as huge confidence in their own ability), the Soviets are at an initial disadvantage because they do not yet understand what is about to hit them. Nevertheless, the are not taken by surprise and they are expecting and waiting for an attack.

Yes, Hitler wanted more panzer divisions and the army created them by taking regiments away from existing divisions. But I am allowing the Germans to create the ideal invasion force although we must try to keep it to the minimum required.

Best wishes,
Steve

Hitler was obsessed with creating new divisions. Instead of reinforcing his divisions on the field he simply created new ones. The Germans never had enough of what they needed. Even if the Moscow was captured it wouldn't have been the end. I have always felt the Germans could never take the whole of the USSR.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Only in a marginal way. I am ready for the attacks this will bring, but here goes. The Soviet Union defeated Germany. Utterly and completely.

Agreed. From June 1941 to the first months 1943 basically the whole German army was engaged on the Eastern front, and it wasn't enough.

That's stating the obvious outside the African campaign this was the only front during that time

Warspite1

Well not exactly - particularly into 1942/43 - there were increasingly large numbers of troops in North Africa (later Italy), Norway and France - not to mention vast amounts of artillery and men within Germany to defend against bombing raids. All these men - and their equipment - were needed on the Eastern Front.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rogo727

ORIGINAL: HanBarca



Agreed. From June 1941 to the first months 1943 basically the whole German army was engaged on the Eastern front, and it wasn't enough.

That's stating the obvious outside the African campaign this was the only front during that time

Warspite1

Well not exactly - particularly into 1942/43 - there were increasingly large numbers of troops in North Africa (later Italy), Norway and France - not to mention vast amounts of artillery and men within Germany to defend against bombing raids. All these men - and their equipment - were needed on the Eastern Front.

Of course, most of those troops were of inferior quality / equipment compared to the ones committed on the eastern front....nonetheless, they would have been more than welcome on the eastern front.

Strange how the obvious is less and less obvious once you start pondering about it [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rogo727



That's stating the obvious outside the African campaign this was the only front during that time

Warspite1

Well not exactly - particularly into 1942/43 - there were increasingly large numbers of troops in North Africa (later Italy), Norway and France - not to mention vast amounts of artillery and men within Germany to defend against bombing raids. All these men - and their equipment - were needed on the Eastern Front.

Of course, most of those troops were of inferior quality / equipment compared to the ones committed on the eastern front....nonetheless, they would have been more than welcome on the eastern front.

Strange how the obvious is less and less obvious once you start pondering about it [:)]

Warspite1

That is certainly true at the start of Barbarossa, but less and less so by the time of Kursk. I have read that more Germans were lost/captured in Tunisia than were lost/captured at Stalingrad.

[fvianello]

Warspite1

That is certainly true at the start of Barbarossa, but less and less so by the time of Kursk. I have read that more Germans were lost/captured in Tunisia than were lost/captured at Stalingrad.

Could be, but:
- Most of the Tunisia losses were Italian troops
- the total number of Axis losses (KIA + captured) in Stalingrad was 841,000 compared to 300,000 in tunisia

On the other "secondary fronts", most units were static division or recruited among people considered "unable for the eastern front". For example, one division assigned to france coastal defence was composed only of diabethics.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Warspite1

That is certainly true at the start of Barbarossa, but less and less so by the time of Kursk. I have read that more Germans were lost/captured in Tunisia than were lost/captured at Stalingrad.

Could be, but:
- Most of the Tunisia losses were Italian troops
- the total number of Axis losses (KIA + captured) in Stalingrad was 841,000 compared to 300,000 in tunisia

Warspite11

Sorry, I was just trying to make the point that the German commitment to shore up North Africa after El-Alamein was considerable - but yes I had not allowed for the fact that there would have been a large number of Italian troops there. What was the German commitment at that time 4-5 divisions?

Edit: can't spell [8|]

[fvianello]

Warspite11

Sorry, I was just trying to make the point that the German commitment to shore up North Africa after El-Alamein was considerable - but yes I had not allowed for the fact that there would have been a large number of Italian troops there. What was the German commitment at that time 4-5 divisions?

Edit: can't spell

I cannot find any detailed figures but I presume 4-5 divisions is realistic....the remains of the AK plus 3 new german division brought mostly by airlift

[nate25]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I think we are all responsible to talk about these things without starting a flame war? We all share a comment interest in history right? I have spent my whole life reading and studying German history in Ww2.

Oh nate25 was not really talking about me, or you-nate25 is our buddy. But every now and then I get smashed for something. Been that way for nearly 12 years. I really don't care. As you said, we are adults, right?

That's a rap folks, exit stage left...

Steiner's right, Rogo, definitely not directed at any of what I call our "regulars". But there's a lot of folks out there that have had a lot of years of brainwashing as far as soc!@%ism and true Russian capability is concerned. [:)]

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

HanBarca,

Still, 20-30% is very nearly another army group and what about air power? Have you got four army groups in the line or three with a fourth in reserve? What are your objectives for the first campaigning season? Leningrad and Moscow I understand but what about Army Group South?

For air forces, I mean 20 - 30% more of everything [:)]
The 1941 campaign objectives could be Leningrad - Moscow - Rostov, with most of the "new" army group assigned south.....

You know, I don't think this works. If the Red Army is not strategically surprised then Army Group North and Army Group Centre are going to have a tougher time capturing Leningrad and Moscow respectively than they did in the real campaign.

Best wishes,
Steve

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Edit: can't spell [8|]

Nate will never let you live this down. [:D]

And Steiner, at my age I ALWAYS need a nap! [>:][:D]

[british exil]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

What about the satellites - Romania, Hungary and Italy? Would equipping these guys (assuming it was possible) with decent tanks, artillery etc be sufficient or were their problems more than just poor equipment?

Italian army problems were surely not only about equipment.....I mean, we weren't able to defeat Greece.

Hitler would have been beter advised to attack Italy ASAP, taken control of the country. No more desert warfare no debacle in Greece, more troops for Rusia.

Thay way he could have attacked the SU way before he even thought about it.

(This post is not meant as a serious idea)


Mat

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: british exil

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

What about the satellites - Romania, Hungary and Italy? Would equipping these guys (assuming it was possible) with decent tanks, artillery etc be sufficient or were their problems more than just poor equipment?

Italian army problems were surely not only about equipment.....I mean, we weren't able to defeat Greece.

Hitler would have been beter advised to attack Italy ASAP, taken control of the country. No more desert warfare no debacle in Greece, more troops for Rusia.

Thay way he could have attacked the SU way before he even thought about it.

(This post is not meant as a serious idea)


Mat

Warspite1

Sounds sensible to me [;)]

[rodney727]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rogo727



That's stating the obvious outside the African campaign this was the only front during that time

Warspite1

Well not exactly - particularly into 1942/43 - there were increasingly large numbers of troops in North Africa (later Italy), Norway and France - not to mention vast amounts of artillery and men within Germany to defend against bombing raids. All these men - and their equipment - were needed on the Eastern Front.

Of course, most of those troops were of inferior quality / equipment compared to the ones committed on the eastern front....nonetheless, they would have been more than welcome on the eastern front.

Strange how the obvious is less and less obvious once you start pondering about it [:)]

True. And you are right of course. I have a three volume set that tells about every single German division that fought in WW2. But as far as active fronts go it was the only major front during that time.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Edit: can't spell [8|]

Nate will never let you live this down. [:D]

And Steiner, at my age I ALWAYS need a nap! [>:][:D]

Warspite1

Yes, but in fairness I did make a one letter mistake with El-Alamein; nate25 regularly makes two letter mistakes with C-A-T [:D]

[rodney727]

And don't forget the white bread division....