German victory in Russia??

[jager506]

I know it's possible to win as the Germans in WIR by attaining 5 or more VPs, but realistically, COULD the Wehrmacht have won in Russia? My conclusion, given the way Hitler ran Germany's war, must be a resounding no.

1) German industry was not mobilized for "total war" in 1941. Just look at the pathetic levels of armaments production figures compared to British and Russian efforts for 1941. It was not until early 1943 or so that Germany was put on a real total war footing and by then the outcome was very much in doubt.

2) Hitler's constant underestimation of Soviet strength and the remarkable recovery and overestimation of the Wehrmacht. I've lost count of how many times he declared "The Russian is finished". And of course his well known, tactically stupid orders of no retreat, no surrender of ground, even if it meant the destruction of valuable formations such as at Stalingrad.

3) Declaring war on the US in Dec 1941, at a time when his army group center was falling back from Moscow in disarray has to rank as one of the greatest political blunders of all time, IMHO even stupider than Barbarossa.

4) Hitler's criminal and stupid treatment of the Russian population. Many groups - Ukranians, Balts, Cossacks were quite fed up with Stalin and ready to welcome the Germans as liberators, but the SS and Einsatzgruppen killers rapidly changed their minds. Think of how much easier a job the Wehrmacht would have had if it had enlisted their cooperation en masse.

5) Having shown the Russians what was in store for them EVEN if they surrendered, there's no reason to believe that the Germans would have won even if they had captured Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. Why toss in the towel when there's only slavery and annihilation to look forward to?

6) The key to German victory was in crippling the Soviet economy, which by early 1942, rested on two central regions - the Urals and the Caucasus. Since the Urals were out of range of the Luftwaffe, which wasn't equipped for strategic bombing anyways, the only chance for the Germans would have been to seize the Caucasus. They MIGHT have done this in the summer of 1942, given the relatively weak Soviet dispositions then, and if they had strengthened their attacking forces (many elite divisions were sitting idle in Western Europe). Far too many divisions were sitting around moping in places like Norway, like the Allies could conduct any MAJOR landings in 1942.

After Stalingrad, a clear-cut German victory is of course out of the question, but I believe a stalemate could still have been achieved, especially since the Germans still possessed a very substantial armored reserve. A pragmatic German leader would have ordered an elastic, flexible defense strategy similar to that conducted by Kesselring in Italy, and entrusted it to such generals as Manstein, Heinrici, Model, Balck et al, who were famous for blunting and/or defeating offensives even when outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1. Before the Kursk debacle, this would have been a realistic, indeed only, option for the Germans to still spin out the Russian war on favorable terms.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by jager506:

I know it's possible to win as the Germans in WIR by attaining 5 or more VPs, but realistically, COULD the Wehrmacht have won in Russia? My conclusion, given the way Hitler ran Germany's war, must be a resounding no.

It all comes down to Hitler, and given the historical Hitler Germany got, they never had a chance to win. I doubt anyone will debate you on that.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by jager506:
I know it's possible to win as the Germans in WIR by attaining 5 or more VPs, but realistically, COULD the Wehrmacht have won in Russia? My conclusion, given the way Hitler ran Germany's war, must be a resounding no.

I agree, the German occupation policies were a critical blunder. Ed and me had a debate on this earlier on this newsgroup. I contended that since Hitler used slavic peoples like Croatians and Bulgarians as Allies/puppets, he could have done the same with the Ucrainians, Bielorussians etc. That would have been the logical conclusion.

However, Ed pointed out to me that Hitler did not consider the South Slavs (Croats, Serbs, Bulgars etc) in the same manner as he did east Slavs (Russian, Ucranians etc). For some nebulous reason, the man had decided that the South slavs weren't as complete "Untermenschen" as the East slavs, and that the latter were fit only as slaves to master Race. He's even atributed with the following quote regarding east occupation policies: "Anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant goes straight into a concentration camp."

Only goes to show what complete intellectual rubbish racism is.

[frank1970]

Amen

[mogami]

Hello, to balance out Hitlers insane behavior you have Stalins. If Hitler had let the generals run the war (They would have rightly stayed out of Russia). The Red Army is more modern then the German army in 1941 but it is suffering from a lack of leadership brought about by Stalins purges.
On the battlefield as early as 26 June 1941 there were soviet units making successfull counterattacks (1st Panzer Group of Army Group South attacked by 1000+ Tanks with 11th Panzer Division mauled by 5th Army)(Try doing that in War in Russia)
Germany's 1941 attack appears much more damaging then in fact it was. The capture of Moscow would not have resulted in a Soviet surrender (although it would have been a serious blow) Killing Stalin would not have produced a Soviet collapase. In fact there is almost no scenario that could be conceived that ends with Russia losing. The thing I find the most remarkable is not that Germany lost but that she was able to fight for so long. After the first winter Germany could no longer conduct offensive operations along the entire front (which means the Soviets always have the means of producing a Reserve to employ on the active front).
After 1942 Germany has lost the war, it is just inertia that keeps it going another 3 years. (Its a long way from the Volga to Berlin)
What would have been needed in order for Germany to win would be the means of equipping and maintaining twice (at least) the number of mobile formations (the ones that conduct offensive operations) Germany was only able to increase the number of Panzer Divisions by reducing by half the number of tanks in each division (also cutting their ability to sustain an offensive) So unless her industry can provide a massive increase in production, she will slowly attrit away her strength.
You don't win wars with defense (defense can only lose, if at some point you do not go over to the attack. The Red Army was at the end of every German offensive able to conduct a counterattack of their own. Once the German army was limited to "mobile defense" they were wore down to static defense, Hitler made the decline more rapid but he was not the basic cause of it (out side of not preparing his army better).
"God is on the side with the most battalions"

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

[Nemesis]

Germany winning? Well, I would have to say yes. But ONLY if they were able to strike the lethal blow before the first winter. If it takes 'em longer than that, it would become war of attrition, and Germany couldn't have won that.

What would have happened if germans were able to advance a bit further?

1. They would have captured Moscow, a major economic and political center. That would have been a severe blow to russians.

And if they had captured Moscow, germans would have controlled major transportation crossroads. It would have been REALLY difficult for russians to conduct strategic-level redeployments along the north-south frontline. Espesially if germans were able to advance as far to the east elsewhere too, as they were on the Moscow-front.

2. They would have captured Leningrad. Same points apply to Leningrad, as does to Moscow, altrough Leningrad was only a secondary objective when compared to Moscow.

3. They would have captured Murmansk rail-track, making lend-lease distributions alot more difficult, if not impossible.

If germans were able to reach those three goals before winter, they could have won. And espesially if they were adequately prepared for the russian winter. Sure, they would propably have to fall back a bit as russians attack in the winter, but they wouldn't propably suffer major strategic setbacks.

[Optha]

The allies even have made mistakes. How long could the French hold out, if they dont divide their tanks to infantry-divisions, produce modern aircrafts and use airfields out of german range? Staying aside with more competend british forces, including the british airforce? 6 month or years?

[mogami]

Hi, good point Optha, I can't see how France could have done a worse job then they actualy did.
1. They had more aircraft when the campaign was over then they did when it started.
2. Their 3 best divisions (armour) were feed into battle piecemeal and allowed to run out of gas.
3. "The Germans will not attack towards Sedan"...how do you know that general?...."Because it is not in my plan"
4. Do nothing from Sept 39 to May 1940 (not even target practice or dig in?)
The French were absoulty the worst lead troops in WWII (France had more plans for attacking Russia then she did for defending herself)

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

[jager506]

IMHO, the German Army had a good chance of taking Moscow if Hitler had not ordered the infamous "move south". If Hoth and Guderian had been reinforced with Hoepner's panzers after the fall of Smolensk, they could have surrounded and captured Moscow before the fall rains came. I think everyone agrees that the loss Moscow would be a serious blow to Russia, economically, communications-wise and also to morale, but it would NOT have caused a Soviet collapse.

On the other hand, leaving the strong Soviet armies around the Kiev area intact would have been risky too, since Army Group South was not quite strong enough to defeat them without additional help. As pointed out, the Germans suffered heavy losses from fairly effective Soviet counterattacks from the Southwest Front, which had many armored formations.

It was pointed out that Germany could cause a Soviet collapse by taking Moscow, Leningrad and Murmansk. That's clearly not possible. Germany could take out Moscow OR Leningrad, but not all three objectives, to say nothing of the vital Caucasus area. The one possibility is if it could convince its Japanese ally to attack Vladivostok and then Siberia in conjunction with its own attacks. But Japan had its own problems - first, Zhukov had given them a bloody nose in outer Mongolia in summer 1939 border clashes, and the Anglo-American freeze on exports to Japan meant that it had to regain its oil, rubber etc supplies which were to be found in Southeast Asia not Russia.

No, Germany could not have won in 1941. It would have to quickly go to a "total war" footing, redress its mistakes (pointed out in my earlier post) and go all out to take and hold the Caucasus oilfields. The oilfields in my opinion, are far more important to the Russian war effort than Allied lend-lease. I mean, what's the use of huge manpower resources if your tanks and planes can't support them??

[mogami]

Hi, Heres all Russia has to do, to hold out intill the first winter. Send all the mobile formations to the Moscow front (they were more effective in reality then they are in the game) Just screen the south and back up. This allows plenty of manpower/equipment for Moscow front. In actual event The Kiev pocket would only exist for a short while and the only way to close it was for the troops from AGC. had they (Germans) continued to drive on Moscow, all the troops they captured in the southern pocket would have been available for transfer north. Not only did closing the pocket yield a victory it also allowed time for AGC to improve it's supply lines. Supply would have stopped the germans before they reached Moscow. I don't know but that maybe the whole 41 campaign was directed on too broad a front. Perhaps having AGS panzer group with army group center to begin with (and leap frogging the attacks-one group attacks till it runs out of supply it stops and refits/rests/resupplys while the second group takes over the attack. The Russians would of course be able to draw troops from any where to stop this but could the germans go fast enough to get to Moscow before the defense was ready? The great problem for me has always been the fact there are simply not enough german mobile units for a front at large as Russia. Each army Group really needs at least 2 Panzer Groups (not Korps)or
24 Panzer Divisions on 22 June 1941 (and of course a similiar number of motorized/mech divisions) Then I think That the Germans can attack on a wide enough front successfully enough to pin the Russian defense. Given their production rate I doubt she could have equipped this many divisions prior to 42 (I don't think production could have kept them up to strength once combat begins) Ohwell sorry about this rambling.

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

[frank1970]

The whole question is what you call a victory.
A total victory by occupying the whole SU was not possible, so unconditional surrender wasn´t possible.
But getting some land,eg the Baltic states, Ucrania and the rest of Poland was possible a very long time in the war. Victory in this sense would have been the occupation of some Lebensraum in the East. This separtate peace with the SU would have been more propable the more losses the SU would have had.

[Nemesis]

Gernams wouldn't have had to invade Murmansk. Capturing Murmansk-railroad would have been enough (in fact, that was the primary objective of Army Group North (German troops in Finland)). They didn't make it, but they came pretty close.

Considering how close germans came to capture Leningrad and Moscow, I think it was more than possible for them to reach those three objectives. While I agree that capturing those objectives wouldn't have caused automatic russian surrender, it would have made things ALOT easier for the germans.

[Optha]

Another theorie:

A german attack in mid 40 would have end in a victory. The post-war preperation of the soviets, espacially the training of officers, and the mild winter 40/41 would allow an advance far behind moscow/leningrad/stalingrad.

[Paul Goodman]

He, he. I love this!

HITLER WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

As everyone will agree, an absolutely critical decision must be made at the conclusion of the Smolensk encirclement. The Soviet West Front is totally defeated. The path to Moscow is essentially open. There are several weeks available to rest and refit the two Panzer Armee's. However, Hitler insisted on moving 2nd Panzer Armee (really considered a Panzer Group at this time) south to assist 1st Panzer Group. The resulted in a hugely successful pocket battle and destruction of massive quantities of men and material. This level of destruction is still debated, but lets say something in the neighborhood of half a million men and several thousand tanks.

Now, lets assume that Guderian wins the argument and attacks east the last week in August or the first week in September. It is important to note that this is essentially an army with no reserve. The real strength is in the Panzer and Motorized Divisions which will be attacking east moving rapidly away from the Smolensk area. The infantry will follow behind as best it can. Most of it must follow to reduce the pockets produced by Blitzkrieg. Now we seem to have a slight problem. There is an undefeated Front in the area of Kiev, with thousands of tanks, excellent artillery and an improving ammunition situation which would be able to move north using the Pripyet marshes as cover for its exposed flank. German infantry was not, is not and will not be capable of dealing with substantial armored formations. They are short on anti-tank weapons and these weapons are rather feeble. No reasonable general would launch a drive such as contemplated with an undefeated army of the magnitude of that Kiev crowd sitting on the flank.

Hitler was absolutely right at this point and the destruction of the Kiev cauldron is one of the great achievements in military history. Hitler now makes his real mistake. He gets conned into resuming the Moscow offensive (Typhoon). If he had followed his original concept, he would have transferred 2nd Panzer Group to Army Group South and the industrial heart of Russia would have been there for the picking. Please note that there is a hell of a difference in the weather in Ukraine and Souther Russia. It is reasonable to assume that all of the economic targets that the German's went after is 1942 could have been obtained in 1941 and early 1942. It is also reasonable to assume with 4th Panzer Group available, Leningrad will fall. It is also reasonable to assume that 3rd Panzer Group can inflict major casualties on the inexperienced new armies being formed in September, then Army Group Center can go into winter defensive positions. That's how the German's could have won the war.

Paul

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Paul Goodman:
He, he. I love this!

HITLER WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

Very interesting points. I have myself mantained for some time a position similar to yours. I belive as you do that the Kiev battle was not such a blunder as people would have it. The Kiev army was immobile and short on ammo at the time of the battle of Kiev, and had lost most of its tanks early on in counterattacks against Kleist's Panzergruppe, but as you say, the ammo situation would eventually be remedied, and enough tanks remained, or could have been brought in to constitute a serious threat.

It is also important to remember that the German generals came close to insubordination when it became clear that Hitler wanted to secure the flanks before marching on Moscow. As a result, Army Group Centre did NOTHING for about 10-14 days while the debate raged, not even rest and refit. This was a critical mistake, since the Panzers were in desperate need of maintenance, and more time was lost later when the refit became mandatory before the advance on Moscow.

However, I do not think that even this course of action would have led to a final German victory. Even in a situation were the Wehrmacht advanced as far as they did in 1942 (and that's a big if), the main fields in the Baku area were still out of their reach, and while the loss of the Maikop oil fields would have damaged the Russians, they could get replacement oil through lend-lease.
And come winter, the Wehrmach would have been terribly overextended. They had trouble supplying their forces in the Caucasus in 42, how much harder would it not have been in 41? They would have done better, but would still have lost in the end.

To be frank, I don't think there IS a winning German strategy in the military sense. To win they would have had to put their economy on total war footing (the way they did after Stalingrad) in June 1941 at the latest AND implement liberation policies in the occupied areas.

[mogami]

Originally posted by Optha:
Another theorie:

A german attack in mid 40 would have end in a victory. The post-war preperation of the soviets, espacially the training of officers, and the mild winter 40/41 would allow an advance far behind moscow/leningrad/stalingrad.

Hi Optha/all. The only problem with this of course is that Germany only has 10 Panzer Divisions equipped in 1940 (they double it to 20 by cutting each in half) However the Russians in 1940 do have lots of tanks and they still have their mech formations (abiet without the proper logistics). I do not think the Soviets made substantial gains in between 1940-41 while the Germans are much more prepared in 1941. It just is not enough.
Germany had no plans for a world war in Sept 1939 (had Hitler known for sure this would happen I am quite sure he would have waited intill 1942 or so before even trying to defeat Poland-the Western allies would not have been that much more ready since Munich would have looked much better to them)
Stalin might have even have gotten himself removed from power in the interm.



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

[Optha]

Sure, 10 Panzerdivisionen at full strengh, Guderian and Mannheim wish to have them in 41..
No lendlease for the russians, even te lendlease for england havnt passed the political discussian, and the US havnt start with increased military biuldup.
With a real chance of french do nothing.
The Luftwaffe dont weakend by british airforce over england. Italy, not prepared for war, wouldnt join the Axis. The gernals in germany wouldnt belive in a fast victory, so the industial preparation in germany for a total war start earlyer. And: In the first winter, the soviets will suffer hughe losses by her counterattak without blizzardweather.
I am sure that the german forces in 40 are able to inflikt the damage like 41. The big question is, what would the western allies do, left in a "cray" war without any fighting? Is there a chance of agreement against the soviets?
I purepose that even GB would agree, just for use the time for better warpreperation...

[mogami]

Hi, to test it edit game remove all but Panzer divisions 1-10 make them full strength. Then back Soviet army up to 1940 borders (I don't think they have taken Baltic States yet) move all/most of soviet armour into Russia and take off about 40 Divisions. Remove all minor allies from axis OB (and about 60 infantry divisions) Turn off blizzard (max help German?)

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

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited March 01, 2001).]

[Optha]

I´ve testet it more than one wich the tabletop "Third Reich ". It could work, even if the western allies doesnt agree to wait until the soviets fall.

[moni kerr]

Originally posted by Optha:
I´ve testet it more than one wich the tabletop "Third Reich ". It could work, even if the western allies doesnt agree to wait until the soviets fall.

Don't forget the Mussolini factor. He was always itching to show Hitler what the Italian armed forces could do. He could declare war on Britain and France, or he could invade Greece.

The Balkans are politically unstable for Germany. If Hitler attacks the USSR there is a very good chance that Yugoslavia and perhaps Greece join the allies. This situation would require a major diversion of troops away from operations in the east.

If France and Britain retain large land forces on the continent then Germany is truly embarking on a 2 front war. This is not a good position for Hitler either militarily or politically. He was committed publically to not repeating the First World War. Opening a second front in the east before securing the west would have been very dangerous politically. I think the generals would have revolted if he had ordered this.