Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: nate25

Agreed. But don't say that too loud. Some idiot will try to start a flame war.

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.

I knew someone, someday, would have the answer as to how the Axis could have one. Who would have thought it would be you.

Who is Sabrina??

And are you also slaakattak?????

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: shunwick

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.

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

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: shunwick

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.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

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.

I personally think the Germans were not too far from the "needed" strength....maybe 20-30% more forces would have been enough to take Moscow and Leningrad by the end of 1941 and launch a second offensive in 1942 to the Urals.

At that point, the eastern front would probably become a continous low intensity conflict. Stalin would have never asked for peace, no matter what.

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?

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

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.

I personally think the Germans were not too far from the "needed" strength....maybe 20-30% more forces would have been enough to take Moscow and Leningrad by the end of 1941 and launch a second offensive in 1942 to the Urals.

At that point, the eastern front would probably become a continous low intensity conflict. Stalin would have never asked for peace, no matter what.

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?

Best wishes,
Steve

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?

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.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

Warspite1

Yes, but then you did choose to invade said country over rough mountain terrain in late autumn....yes, I see what you mean [;)]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: HanBarca



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

Warspite1

Yes, but then you did choose to invade said country over rough mountain terrain in late autumn....yes, I see what you mean [;)]

Yep......Season doesn't matter when you don't have balls [;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Warspite1

Yes, but then you did choose to invade said country over rough mountain terrain in late autumn....yes, I see what you mean [;)]

Yep......Season doesn't matter when you don't have balls [;)]

Warspite1

Speaking of which - why don't you have a look at the Australian Beauties thread - we have an Italian category you may like to vote in??

Anyway - sorry, back to the topic in hand.

How big was the Italian 8th(?) army at its height in Russia?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: HanBarca



I personally think the Germans were not too far from the "needed" strength....maybe 20-30% more forces would have been enough to take Moscow and Leningrad by the end of 1941 and launch a second offensive in 1942 to the Urals.

At that point, the eastern front would probably become a continous low intensity conflict. Stalin would have never asked for peace, no matter what.

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?

Best wishes,
Steve

Warspite1

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?

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: shunwick




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?

Best wishes,
Steve

Warspite1

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?

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

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Warspite1

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?

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 [&:]