German victory in Russia??

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 7:02 pm

Hi, I don't think Optha wants to invade Russia before knocking out France?

What time of year do you intend on starting your attack Optha? Has Germany alrady invaded Poland (since an attack on Russia in 1940 would have meant the Germans started their planning in 1939) Once Germany invades Poland they are at war with Britian and France (this can not be changed) While France did nothing to help Poland, they would most certainly attacked Germany had the bulk of the German army (and all the Panzers) been involved in a Russian Campaign.

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 5:35 am

Sure, i would try to knock out the russian without capture france. start on 10/5/40. the french troops where unable to get ground with their attacks. Norway must still be captured. The finns would even join germany for the same reasons they do in 41. And nearly all balkan countrys have a nazi-regime ( even yougoslavia), exept greece. Italy have not declared war and wouldnt agaist french without german help. The baltic states arent captured by the russians, but know about the soviet interest to do it.
The only problem is the german two-front-phobie. Allover you can hold the western front with the troops you would need the secure the invaded countrys and the coast.
It could work in "Third Reich" even against a good opponent. On the other side, this is only a pure theory, because Hitler was a simple thinking man who allways do the next step/nearest solution etc.

Is no one here who tried it in another WWII-tabletop?

ThorsHammer · Post by **ThorsHammer** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:52 am

There have been many good points made to the question of could the germans have actually beaten the russians, mostly in the opinion that they could have. In my humble opinion, i believe they could have also; but the key word is COULD. All the hinderences to victory have already been stated: troops sitting idle in the west, hitler, lack of production, hitler, hitler, etc. Despite all of these problems, however, it was still possible, if done quickly. The only accurate thing adolf ever said was along the lines of "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse". As all know, the russian army was in a huge state of disorganization, and millions of men were killed or captured in the opening phases. With a sense of urgency (which seemed to be lacking), a drive to moscow when it was virtually undefended, would have certainly succeded. Despite the benefits gained by diverting armour to encircle masses of russian troops, and drive to leningrad only to turn back once you get there,those things pale in comparison to taking the enemy capital, which stalin would not leave historically,(he realized that his power would be snapped if he abandoned the capital). Not wanting an "empty victory" in taking moscow like Napoleon, doesnt even apply. Back then, moscow wasnt THE major rail hub for all of russia, not to mention centre of communications, production,etc; not to mention most likely getting Stalin in the process (dead most likely). mainly immobile russian infantry without much ammo could be dealt with later. Fortunately for all of us, the germans were not prepared at all for a long term war when they attacked, which probably sealed their demise despite all the bad tactical choices. Even after stalingrad, the germans were able to recruit enough men to get the army almost to the pre-stalingrad peak. With more men in the army to start, and production on a war footing from the start as well, moscow probably could have been taken anyway, despite the delays.

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 11:34 am

As ever,

we only dicuss what the germans could do better than historical, on the other side, the russians make mistakes which influence the outcome of war.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:32 pm

Originally posted by Optha:
As ever, we only dicuss what the germans could do better than historical, on the other side, the russians make mistakes which influence the outcome of war.

This isn't some slight to the Soviets, when discussing the results in the aftermath of a fight, you usually ask the what-if questions about the loser, not the winner.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 5:21 pm

Originally posted by Optha:
As ever,

we only dicuss what the germans could do better than historical, on the other side, the russians make mistakes which influence the outcome of war.

You're right, that's why I claim the Germans could not have won the war. You would have the remove all German mistakes while leaving all the vastly more disastrous Russian mistakes. This is totally unrealistic. In a war between two roughly equal contestants, the one who screws up the least tends to win.
But the Soviet Union and Germany were not roughly equal. The reason Germany did not win was not because of their mistakes, but because Russia was incomparably stronger than Germany. The fact that they came so close to win is a miracle of military achievement in itself.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 5:35 pm

Since at least I do not think the Soviets would have surrendered even had the Germans taken Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, you could try this tweak to the Axis VP spread to get a more realistic challenge:

Leningrad 1 VP, Moscow 1 VP, Gorki 1 VP, Stalingrad 1 VP and Baku 1 VP.

Had the Germans managed to take all these areas, then the damage to Soviet War economy would have been so catastrophic that they would not have been able to seriously threaten German domination of European Russia, which can be considered victory.

But they would have gone on fighting.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 5:44 pm

Originally posted by Optha:
Sure, i would try to knock out the russian without capture france. start on 10/5/40. the french troops where unable to get ground with their attacks.

I think you underestimate the French. With the German armies tied down in Russia, they would have attacked, without any question. There is also NO hope for the Germans to hold the Allies with the bulk of their forces in Russia. In 1939, the OKH was in a state of panic over the prospect that the French would attack all out while the war in Poland was going on.

Remeber, the Germans won in the west by air superiority and outmaneuvering the Allies. At the Meuse breakthrough, they faced some of France's worst divisions with their finest Panzer units. But there were many, many excellent French divisions and thousands of Allied planes. With air superiority assuered and numerical advantage to perhaps 5:1 or 10:1 against Germany's weakest units, they would have crossed the Rhine and taken the Ruhr in no time.

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:33 pm

1)Ive read in another topic, that the french have spend more time for plans to invade the soviet-union than for a war with the germans.
2) The french are still a little shocked about the WWI-attritioncombat. And their strategy still based on the experience of WWI. And they belive in the "west wall". Who will say that they would attack? Pherhabs, perhabs not. But if the first assault end in a desaster...
3) Yes, the french have many fine divisions. A poor strategy and no enthusiasm for another war (only for defend their homland)
4) Take a look on the political situation. No western democraty want a strong communist power with infuence into europe. Perhabs, hitler could manage an agreement with england/france. (would they wait until the nazis and communist have slauterd themselves?)

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:51 pm

Originally posted by Optha:
The french are still a little shocked about the WWI-attritioncombat. And their strategy still based on the experience of WWI. And they belive in the "west wall". Who will say that they would attack? Pherhabs, perhabs not. But if the first assault end in a desaster...

It's true the French were not planning to go to the offensive before 1942, but they were planning to go on the offensive eventually. If nothing else, seeing the sucess of the German Panzers in Russia would have given them food for though... much as the Soviets had begun to rethink the role of tanks after the French debacle. Also, don't forget that WWI did end with sucessful large-scale allied offensives against the Germans. Even with WWI-vintage tactics, the tank was seen as the weapon to break the deadlock of trench warfare.

In 1939, the Allies were shocked by the speed with wich Poland was defeated, but in 1940, they would not have repeated the same mistake and they would have had much more time to react. They would have had to be clinically insane not to attack. So, my guess is, if Germany attacks the Soviets in May of 1940, the Allies rumble into action in July-August at the latest.

Originally posted by Optha:
Take a look on the political situation. No western democraty want a strong communist power with infuence into europe. Perhabs, hitler could manage an agreement with england/france. (would they wait until the nazis and communist have slauterd themselves?)

Before München, many western politicians saw Germany as a buffer against Bolshevism, but after the 1939 annexation of Bohemia and the attack on Poland, I doubt the French would have considered making a deal with the Germans. And as for Britain, they refuse to make peace after Dunkirk, what makes you think they would be ready to negotiate in a far better strategic position?

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited March 06, 2001).]

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 5:11 am

Hi, also I do not think the Luftwaffe can cover the West and East in 1940 (it was in fact not larger then the French airforce only better employed) the allies would face the problem of where to attack Germany if Germany does not invade the Low Countries. The first French Advance (In the Caleubrun (sic) Salient was in Sept 1939 it only went about 20km into Germany and had orders to retreat if attacked. However by May 1940 I suspect even a knicklehead like Gamelin would have had considerable strengtn deployed here. With British prodding they would have attacked and captured the Saar region. Since French mobile formations would have had no other place to go they would have gravitated to this region. The German 1940 Plan for France was exactly perfect to counter the French 1940 (France races into low countries to Stop germans there. Germany breaks through at Sedan cutting off the French armies that have advanced.) But remaining on the defense the French would be forced to do something else. The forward/slow offensive would fit them perfectly. Meanwhile in the Soviet Union the Red Army will be pretty much the same as the 1941 army only deployed further back in better positions. The German army will only contain 300 Stukas and half as many Panzer divisions as in 1941. Germany had better make sure Mussolini behaves his self (but remember German success ALWAYS triggered Italy to try some silly adventure to match)
So I think a German attack on Russia in 1940 will see the Balkans and North Africa fall to the Western Allies while France/Britian enter Germany (gaining confidence as they go) and no real improvement in the German postion in Russia vrs their 1941 prospects)

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 11:21 am

Maybe, maybe not,

as i said above, it is only a theroie cause of the german 2-front-phopie. If you ever play a full WWII-game, try it out.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 11:55 am

Hi, many years ago I used to play a board game SPI's "War in Europe" I always played the allies and the guy I played against always played the Axis. After a few wars he talked me into allowing him to "cash in" the entire 1939 German force and "buy" a new army and get free deployment. I said ok so he got rid of all the German naval units (surface fleets and U-boats)he placed about 80 full strength infantry divisions on the West Wall and had increased the size of the Luftwaffe by about 1/3. He had 20 Panzer Divisions and 20 Panzer Grenadier Divisions in 1939 an about 120 Infantry divisions.
He attacked Poland and just kept heading east. I don't know if you are familier with WIE but each nation had it's own combat results table with differing attack ratios needed to get the same result (german 3to1 in 39 French needed almost 5-6 to one to get same result) French infantry could only stack 3 high while germans could stack 4 so a stack of germans on the West Wall was 36 combat factors (each German infantry was a 6 west wall multipled 1 by 3 giving 6x3 +6x3=36) French infantry was only 4 so even if you could get 3 hexes to attack you only had 36 or 1to1 and he could not lose.
It required many turns to move enough British units (stack 4 value 8) over to France. (since Britian did not have very many to start you had to first build a division and then ship it, and then move it to where it could fight. Meanwhile in the East his supply line had problems (starting on the West side of Poland vrs the 1941 border.) The Russians (also me) backed up to a line around Minsk-Kiev and dug in. (the Game allowed for limited combat between Russia and Germany without triggering Russian Mobilazion however once German troops did certain things (capture Russian town) "Total War" was declared with large Soviet Reinforcments. What was funny was while France/England did not do very much in the West the War in the East went at the Same pace as if it had started a year later.
I finally started amph landings on empty German coast to make him send troops back from Russia or reduce the size of his western stacks. The next game he did the same thing to start (bought his army) but he attacked France in 1940 before heading east (this time with over 30 Panzer Divisions) it was a much harder War.

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 1:45 am

Thanks, Mogami, for your post

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:33 pm

Hitler seems to be balamed for alot of what happend on the eastern and western fronts but has anyone here read Alan Clarks Barbarossa?. It leaves alot of the blame to the general staff either for delaying or giving plainly bad advice.
Hitler may have been mistaken in many instances but his loyalties to people ie Goering..lead tosome mistakes but much of the blame should go to the general staff...many of these men survived the war and blame Hitler totally in their own recolections but what would of Hitlers memoirs have to say about these men?. :rolleyes:

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 2:13 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:
Hitler seems to be balamed for alot of what happend on the eastern and western fronts but has anyone here read Alan Clarks Barbarossa?. It leaves alot of the blame to the general staff either for delaying or giving plainly bad advice.
Hitler may have been mistaken in many instances but his loyalties to people ie Goering..lead tosome mistakes but much of the blame should go to the general staff...many of these men survived the war and blame Hitler totally in their own recolections but what would of Hitlers memoirs have to say about these men?. :rolleyes:

Agree, see especially chapter "The Lötzen decision". Clarke seems to belive that had Hitlers generals done as they were told, Leningrad would have fallen in August and Moscow in the following spring.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 3:25 pm

Thank god...I thought someone would just crack it over what I said.
I dont know if you had read Goebbels diaries for 1945, but it shows again another case were the general staff believed there was going to be a direct attack on Berlin from Poland, but instead it came in Pomerania and The Germans lost thousands of men in man power ie to be drafted soldiers( though Himmler shares part of the blame). Hitler wanted to defend this territory but the Gen staff not so much refused but claimed that the main attack would come to Berlin...
Thus the Germans lost man power and a large section of their manufacturing, and industrial deposits due to yet another miscalculation of the Gen staff.

In clarks book he even mentions the fact that due to stalling tatics by the Gen Staff that panzer units could have been used sooner after the encirclement of Kiev for the push onto Moscow, but the Gen staff not so much Hitler stalled for reasons of resting panzer units instead of pushing the soviets back while they were in dire trouble towards Moscow...This allowed the Soviets time to create greater defences and surely helped in the failing of German troops reaching Moscow.

This stalling both before and after the Kiev encirclement cost them the war.......if Moscow fell would Stalin have remained in power and not just that but Stalin in newly released documents approached the Germans for peace even before the battles surrounding Smolensk.

You can blame Hitler and Goering for Stalingrad but the battle should never had taken place if the gen Staff done what they were told in '41.......

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:20 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:
In clarks book he even mentions the fact that due to stalling tatics by the Gen Staff that panzer units could have been used sooner after the encirclement of Kiev for the push onto Moscow, but the Gen staff not so much Hitler stalled for reasons of resting panzer units instead of pushing the soviets back while they were in dire trouble towards Moscow...This allowed the Soviets time to create greater defences and surely helped in the failing of German troops reaching Moscow.

The rest and refit of the Panzer forces after the Kiev Battle was probably an absolute necessity, since even before the Ucranian campaign, the Panzers were extremly worn down. According to Clark, the Kiev battle made it virtually impossible for the Germans to take Moscow in 1941.

Harry Hoppe · Post by **Harry Hoppe** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 7:56 pm

Well, i read this posts with some interest and think we´ll never find out.

Every action from the germans will create a reaction and vice versa.

If the germans make some better decisions, like conquering Leningrad in Sep 41, the russians loose 14 (or 24?) divisions in Kronstadt and very important tank industry.
Also, the 18. army is free (nearly 200.000 men) and the east sea is german, so they can transport troops and support via sea - without partisan activity. Everybody can see this, even a 90 years old women, but if you don´t want to see?
Hitler - after the time bombs of kiev - wanted the city to be sieged and later to be elliminated. He dreamt of the "endsieg", like many others too.

But, on the other hand, the russians made many big and stupid mistakes too.

Kiev was, like Bryansk in 42, very stupid, but Stalin gave his orders.

I think, the best chance to win the russian war, was left after the greece/yougs. campaign, germany lost 6 weeks in the spring, the victory about the brits was, in my opinion, hitlers defeat.

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:56 pm

The generall doctrine for german officers has been: Better a wrong decision than no decision
It was one of the most importent advantage the german army have. If you discuss "what if"s, dont forgett that the germans must have made some wrong decisions. Or cancel the word best in " best army in the world".