Successful 1942 offensive

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sun May 13, 2001 7:23 pm

Hi

I'd like to hear what you guys think about this alternative 1942 scenario:

Hitler retained excessive force in Norway and France during the summer of '42. What if he had trimmed these to provide a stronger offensive concentration in Russia - about 25 to 30% stronger is fair I think.

And instead of vacillating about the objectives, he set the Caucasus oilfields as the primary target. The advance to Stalingrad and the Volga would be essentially to provide flank protection for the armies in the Caucasus, and no, there's no need to capture Stalingrad. Just reaching the Don/Volga would be sufficient. And no sudden urges to attack Leningrad in mid-offensive. Everywhere else on the Eastern Front would remain on strategic defensive, which the Wehrmacht was quite capable of doing in 1942.

Then, assuming the southern armies actually capture all the main oil centers - Baku, Tbilisi, Batumi, Grozny - which comprise about 70-75% of total Russian oil production, do we have a German strategic victory here?

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Sun May 13, 2001 10:26 pm

Yes, if it will made USSR to surrender. But I doubt it VERY much. Probablity of surrender would be somewhat higher in case of USSR figting alone without allies. But direct Caucasus offensive is very dangerous because of vulnerable northern flank.

P.S. Please, don't mention Dunkerk when I say about flanks.

[ May 13, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Sun May 13, 2001 11:02 pm

I agree with Mist on this. Actually I think the german campaign was lost already in december 1941. All this speculation always calculates with the russians beeing passive and non-aggressive. But the soviet leadership were fighting for its life, they would surely not sit quiet watching the germans chew their resources. The long flank would be like a dam just waiting to burst and see the russian hordes flooding the germans.

Often this type of discussion fails on one very important aspect, what does it really takes to defeat the soviet-union? I think we need to agree on what it takes, otherwise we discuss from diffrent perspectives.

What do you think Jager506. Im Interested in hearing your opinion, always enjoying reading your analyzing statements on diffrent topics.

Hoth · Post by **Hoth** » Mon May 14, 2001 12:41 am

I might be wrong but capturing Stalingrad and securing both sides of the Volga would be critical to any advance into the oil fields.

Things might have been alot harder at Stalingrad if Hitler had units from France and Norway guarding the flanks of Stalingrad. Instead of underequiped minor allies.

Besides the exposed flank,going for the oil fields seems to be the best scenario for the Axis. Push into Persia and then hook up with Rommel. This might have also made Turkey join the war on the Axis side. Many pro Axis nations like Iraq etc would have joined the Axis camp to. Would have been realistic to link up with Japan in India as well. Four million Turkish troops might have helped with the overstretched defence lines on the Volga to. If Turkey was willing to commit it that is.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Mon May 14, 2001 8:55 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth:
[QB]I might be wrong but capturing Stalingrad and securing both sides of the Volga would be critical to any advance into the oil fields.

A (big) river barrier is an excellent defensive terrain feature. Even in the game, attacking across a river is a pain, and if you have well prepared defenders on the other side, forget it. Try somewhere else. I don't think taking both sides of Volga would be necessary, since this force's main responsibility would not be to capture Stalingrad but to guard the Caucasus armies' flanks.

German success rests on two key issues - taking the Caucasus, which was guarded by relatively weak Soviet forces in summer 1942, since Stalin expected the Germans to go for Moscow again, and defeating any Soviet counteroffensive in the Don-Volga bend. Personally, I think that IF Hitler had denuded his forces in France, Norway and possibly even other "quieter" sections of the Eastern Front, this might have worked out. For one thing, they would not have suffered the huge casualties in Stalingrad street fighting, and a 25-30% stronger GERMAN force might have checked a Russian counterattack.
BUT the Russians would have fought on, with greatly diminished capacity but the war would go on.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth:
Besides the exposed flank,going for the oil fields seems to be the best scenario for the Axis. Push into Persia and then hook up with Rommel.

There was a German plan called "Orient" which called for a linkup between the forces pushing thru the Caucasus into Persia and Rommel's forces in Egypt, but it was poorly conceived and not given proper support. There was no way Rommel could have kicked the British out of Egypt given his small force and abysmal logistics situation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth:
This might have also made Turkey join the war on the Axis side. Many pro Axis nations like Iraq etc would have joined the Axis camp to. Would have been realistic to link up with Japan in India as well. Four million Turkish troops might have helped with the overstretched defence lines on the Volga to. If Turkey was willing to commit it that

Turkey would have joined up if this happened, but Turkey's army was closer to a million or so, not FOUR, and their weapons/arms were mostly of WWI vintage. Not too much help there. Linking up with Japan was quite another matter. The Japanese armed forces were, after their easy victories of Dec 1941 to Mar 1942, torn between several lines of advance: The navy wanted to defeat the US Navy with one great battle and to isolate Australia and the south Pacific. Their Army wanted to move into India and MAYBE link up with the Germans. It was ONE or the other, not both. In the end, the navy got their way, and Coral Sea and Midway was the result.

Hoth · Post by **Hoth** » Tue May 15, 2001 1:28 pm

Great points there,Jager506.

I forgot to mention and take into consideration that,Rommel would have needed his strength boosted for any advance to link up in Persia(Iran). Most likely it would be the troops from the eastern front linking up with him in Egypt then.

Turkey would have joined up if this happened, but Turkey's army was closer to a million or so, not FOUR, and their weapons/arms were mostly of WWI vintage. Not too much help there.

I'm sorry I forgot where I got the info. Citadel by Robin Cross I think. Hitler mentioned something about getting Turkey and it's four million man army into the war. One million or four they would have been great for quiet sections of the southern front and freeing more German units for the main areas. I honestly don't know much about the state of the,Turkish army during WW2.

When I think about it,I dont think the Arab population would be too happy with Turkish troops entering their countries with the Axis. Pro Axis or not,I wonder if this would've drawn them closer to the Allied camp? Most likely,Turkey would have conditions for joining and return of some of it's lost territory in WW1 would be part of it.