WI; Germany postpones Operation Barbarossa

[shanafona]

Hi

I've always wondered what if Hitler delayed the invasion Russia by a full year to say May 1942?

To my mind several things come out;

A; More reinforcements sent to Rommel in North Africa

B; Continued improvement/ development of the German armed forces

C; Further resources directed to the U boat campaign

Any thoughts?

Mark

[Churchill]

Hi

I've always wondered what if Hitler delayed the invasion Russia by a full year to say May 1942?

To my mind several things come out;

A; More reinforcements sent to Rommel in North Africa

B; Continued improvement/ development of the German armed forces

C; Further resources directed to the U boat campaign

Any thoughts?

Mark

The Soviets will be a lot stronger in 1942 but the Germans would have an extra month to campaign against them.
Malta could be captured.
North Africa and the Middle East could be secured.
The German invasion of the Soviet Union would also have a new front in the Caucasus.
Turkey would likely enter the war on the German side too.

[Tuhachevskey]

plus for USSR:
more forces would be reequipment
plus for germany-they bcould occupy Middle east and Turkey-and Baku couldbe attack by Nazi bombers.

[Admiral Canaris]

The Soviets will be a lot stronger in 1942 but the Germans would have an extra month to campaign against them.
Malta could be captured.
North Africa and the Middle East could be secured.
The German invasion of the Soviet Union would also have a new front in the Caucasus.
Turkey would likely enter the war on the German side too.

So why can Germany supply the Afrika Korps any better than IOTL now again? They'll still be dependent on Italian shipping, and their codes will stil be cracked. And reaching the Caucasus goes into ASBland. Not that mounting a major invasion through those mountains will be very logistically plausible either...

On the other hand, the Soviets get a lot of time to reorganise, re-equip, and fortify the new border.

[Tuhachevskey]

So why can Germany supply the Afrika Korps any better than IOTL now again
Germany would need to grasp malta-and maybe Spain would become an ally of Axis.

[Anaxagoras]

Isn't there a theory that the Soviets would have attacked the Nazis had the Nazis not attacked the Soviets? Sounds fishy to me, but IIRC it is believed in by some historians.

[Tuhachevskey]

Isn't there a theory that the Soviets would have attacked the Nazis had the Nazis not attacked the Soviets? Sounds fishy to me, but IIRC it is believed in by some historians.
6 july 1941? Viktor Suvorov("M-Day")? no-Soviet forces wasnt good in supply and expirience.......

[Admiral Canaris]

Not that soon, but perhaps at some point in '42 or '43. Stalin were building up very large forces towards such a time, though it's arguable whether he was preparing for aggression or just paranoid.

[dmz23]

The Soviets MAY get hammered like Barbarossa OTL in the opening stages of a May,1942 invasion but that really depends on A]Stalin keeping his armies on the frontiers from 1941 onwards,without change and B]Stalin dismissing the inevitable invasion intelligence like OTL. A+B would lead to the familiar 1941 disaster scenario,but the Germans will be in for a rude shock when they encounter large numbers of T-34s and possibly better Soviet aircraft[Ramjet fighters?]. So,even in a rehash of Barbarossa OTL,the Germans will suffer more casualties if only because their enemy can throw larger numbers of high quality war weapons against them in May,1942. Soviet tactics could also have improved from mid-41 to 42[perhaps by implementing a more extensive mobile warfare training Programme]and combined with better battlefield communication[more tank radios..],the Soviets may well be able to stop the Germans near Smolensk or just beyond. The Germans may never see the Kremlin's spires with a May,1942 invasion. Maybe...

[Anaxagoras]

but the Germans will be in for a rude shock when they encounter large numbers of T-34s and possibly better Soviet aircraft

I'm not an expert on WWII weapons. What difference would a year's postponement have on the quality of German tanks and aircraft?

[Admiral Canaris]

The PzKpfw IV would still be the German mainstay, though they might be getting ready to field some Tiger-Is. As for aircraft, the FW-190 might be getting into service, as well as improved versions of the Me-109. The Ju-87 ("Stuka") will remain in service, but probably to a lesser extent.

[Kevin in Indy]

The Germans still have an advantage in unit quality - whenever the first clash between the Germans and Soviets begins, the Germans are going to rip and rend. They're still going to be at a long-term disadvantage due to numbers and resources, but the Germans may survive if they can manipulate Stalin into making the first move. If the initial Soviet attack fails, maybe somebody manages to take out Stalin.

[ac220v]

Not that soon, but perhaps at some point in '42 or '43. Stalin were building up very large forces towards such a time, though it's arguable whether he was preparing for aggression or just paranoid.
Poor Uncle Joe... If he doesn't believe in German invasion he's delusional. If he does, he's paranoid... No way to appear sane. His only error was that he really belived that Hitler would deal with England first, instead of trying Napoleon's approach...

and possibly better Soviet aircraft[Ramjet fighters?].
i doubt there would be any. Probably there would be more of what there was in 41 OTL, - single-seater Il-2s, some MiG-3s, some YAKs, no LaGGs-LAs (but maybe some other design by Lavochkin,), maybe some early I-185s by Polikarpov...

MiG's were fine, but weak armament and preference for high altitudes would be a problem (although longer-range MiGs or I-185 would be good escort fighters, something USSR hadn't). Single-seat ILs were a mistake too, and there would be more of that mistake ITTL. It's difficult to say that I-185 would or wouldn't be, but on paper they look formidable enough.

Another interesting addition would be more of SVT-40 rifles. (Roughly similar to FN FAL) Although less suited for wartime production and requiring more maintenance than Mosin-Nagants or submachine guns, they were better than Mauser carabines Germans had.

[Admiral Canaris]

Poor Uncle Joe... If he doesn't believe in German invasion he's delusional. If he does, he's paranoid... No way to appear sane. His only error was that he really belived that Hitler would deal with England first, instead of trying Napoleon's approach...

No, what I meant was, the build-up being planned towards '42-43 was wholly disproportionate to the strategic threat against the USSR (even Nazi Germany), which implies either possible offensive operations or a paranoid overestimate of enemy capabilities. Me, I'm in favour of the latter theory; research has shown that the Soviets consistently overestimated their potential enemies throughout the interwar years.

[Blue Max]

Of course, if the Soviets find themselves in a war with Japan in 1942 when Germany tries to kick in the front door, this could go down very badly.

I wonder about the border clashes that would happen in that time period.

Finally, if Stalin does make a blunder of some kind, like take the German bait to move against Afghanistan and India (and he might, particularly if he buys the whole fourth member of the axis deal), we could have a triangle war where the UK and USA are fighting Germany and the Soviet Union, which are also fighting each other.

[LeoXiao]

It seems like Russia would get wary of the Reich's expansion into the Middle East. Stalin wanted Hitler to stay in Europe, I think. And it's been said before but Stalin would have more organized forces to work with and the Soviet forces wouldn't get overrun as easily this time.

[Nietzsche]

The longer Germany waits to invade the Soviet Union, the worse it'll go for them. If you're looking for an Eastern German Victory(or atleast, a favorable peace), you need to attack earlier, not later. But, obviously, not too soon. Try late spring, 1941.

[Riain]

I agree, they postponed it too long as it was. The 1000 T34 and 500 KV1s of 1941 would be triple or quadruple that in 1942, too much for 3-4000 undergunned PzIIIs and PzIVs.

The solution to the Nazis problems, as I say in the 'fighter' thread, is total war production from Sept 1939, peaking in 1941-2. This would give the Panzerwaffe 3 or 4 Pz btns per division instead of 2 and enough trucks early enough to a) create more mot. inf divs, b) start Barbarossa in May and c) push it all the way to Moscow in one campaigning season.

[Grimm Reaper]

If Hitler concentrates on the British for another year it will not be a pleasant situation.

Only his determination to attack Russia without waiting another day, let alone an entire year, prevented the collapse of the entire British position.

Consider the forces he was able to send to North Africa once the US had landed in French North Africa and now imagine that effort in ground and air power being sent in June 1941. Heck, cut it in half and give Rommel another 150,000 men with proper armor and artillery support, plus half the Luftwaffe effort from late 1942.

If the world is fortunate the British manage to hold at the Nile and lose Malta but I'm expecting the Suez Canal to fall also.

And if Hitler decides to use a mere third of the divisions not invading Russia in 1941 then Turkey either joins the Axis or is overrun and the British face a two front campaign they can't possibly withstand, with the Soviets facing a similar predicament after the British are driven from the Middle East.

[DeathDemon]

Another interesting addition would be more of SVT-40 rifles. (Roughly similar to FN FAL) Although less suited for wartime production and requiring more maintenance than Mosin-Nagants or submachine guns, they were better than Mauser carabines Germans had.
How is an early semi-automatic rifle in any way similar to an assault rifle?

[Riain]

Hitler had 10 or so months to deal with Britian and didn't because of a lack of foresight and resources. Time is against Germany in every way, every week wasted taking care of someone in 1940-1 is a month closer to defeat in 1945.

With a few more resources, produced by increased war production from 1939 (ASB with Hitlers regime), the Blitz would have been more effective, the Uboat happy time would have been more effective and the Med could have been worked on with plenty of resources from October 1940, not March 1941. This would have knocked Britain so far back that she would not have been a problem for Germany for years. The same increased resources would have allowed Barbarossa to start in May 1941, and given it much more punch when it mattered, deep inside Russia after several months.

[ac220v]

How is an early semi-automatic rifle in any way similar to an assault rifle?
Their actions are similar, their cartridges are similar enough (7.62x51 is quite powerful for an intermediate cartridge.) and there were full-auto variants of SVT (AVT), so comparison isn't that unreasonable. (They both weren't especially good as full-auto weapons BTW, although SVT was probably worst of the two.)

[Justin Green]

What happens if Barbarossa is delayed indefinitely due to the entrance of the US in the war in Dec '41?

I think if Germany waits for peace in the West to invade the Soviet Union that the Allies chances of liberating Europe are slim to none.

[Riain]

If Barbarossa is postponed in mid 1941 and then postponed indefinately in Dec. '41 then we will see a 3 or 4 way Cold War with Nazi Germany being one of the players.

[Tuhachevskey]

I agree, they postponed it too long as it was. The 1000 T34 and 500 KV1s of 1941 would be triple or quadruple that in 1942, too much for 3-4000 undergunned PzIIIs and PzIVs.

The solution to the Nazis problems, as I say in the 'fighter' thread, is total war production from Sept 1939, peaking in 1941-2. This would give the Panzerwaffe 3 or 4 Pz btns per division instead of 2 and enough trucks early enough to a) create more mot. inf divs, b) start Barbarossa in May and c) push it all the way to Moscow in one campaigning season.
Only thing, which red army need-better supply, better communication. About T-34's and kv1's\KV2's--german had the best antitank artillery in the world at this time. And communication.

[shanafona]

I'm not an expert on WWII weapons. What difference would a year's postponement have on the quality of German tanks and aircraft?



Another year would see the long barrel 75mm being fitted to the Panzer IV and Stug III. Krupp had already designed a long barrel 75mm for the for the Stug III by March 1941, the same gun was fitted to the Panzer IV F2.

Secondly, a years delay would allow a greater motorisation of the panzer grenadier battalions with a higher number of SDKFZ 251s.

As for the Luftwaffe, there would be more FW190's available, more than a match for what the Russians have in service in 1942.

[Admiral Canaris]

If Barbarossa is postponed in mid 1941 and then postponed indefinately in Dec. '41 then we will see a 3 or 4 way Cold War with Nazi Germany being one of the players.

Germany doesn't have the resources (foodstuffs and raw materials) to field a large military in Europe. They'll be dependent on the Soviets if they don't attack them.

[Admiral Canaris]

I agree, they postponed it too long as it was. The 1000 T34 and 500 KV1s of 1941 would be triple or quadruple that in 1942, too much for 3-4000 undergunned PzIIIs and PzIVs.

It isn't the tanks that are crucial, but doctrine and experience (and, of course, numbers). German veterans in well weighted Panzer divisions can easily take apart inexperienced and badly trained Soviet formations of approximate numerical parity, even if the Sovs have better tanks in technological terms. Also, there's the matter of radio for the tanks, etc, precision equipment that the USSR needs Lend-Lease for.

[burmafrd]

Stalin was seriously pushing military production. Those new T-34's would have been around by the thousands a year later. And the improvements started after the Winter War Fiasco would have had another year to take hold.
Not to mention Stalin was absolutely blind not to see it coming (and he shot the one intelligence officer who told him to his face it was) in 1941. I really doubt that a year later and with more of a buildup he is as blind again (possible, but not probable).

The best shot Germany had was hitting them in 1941. Starting a MONTH earlier no matter what- sure there were wet areas but the overall advantage of having that extra month trumps that.
Also ramping up war production and actually preparing for fighting that winter just in case. If that is done then they have a realistic shot.

[Redbeard]

By mid 1942 the Red Army would have completed the expansion programme into a 500+ Divisions force armed with modern equipment in all services and with units on full strength in both equipment and personel. The OTL force of 1941 was less than 200 Divisions with mainly obsolescent materiel, understrength and more important with many/most senior commander posts vacant or with very inexperienced commanders. The Barbarossa attack forec was appr. 150 Div. incl. Axis allies (IIRC 110-120 German).

So unless the Wehrmacht undergo the expansion it did in OTL wareconomy from 1942 in recordbreaking time and at least a year ahead, attacking SU will be like a good bantam weight boxer meeting a mediocre heavyweight. The bantam boxer will start scoring a lot of points, but without seriously hurting the opponent and the first time the bantam boxer is hit he is out for good.

The German Army will probably still be tactically superior, but the Red Army will not be nearly as inept as in OTL 1941 and will have overwhelming numbers (which it did not have in 1941). The best chance of the Germans would probably be the Soviets attacking first - that would give the Wehrmacht a chance to hurt a paw or two on the bear before counterattacking - perhaps even getting an old grumpy cat and a couple of battlechickens on your side - or at least have them stop poking your ass...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[StevoJH]

By mid 1942 the Red Army would have completed the expansion programme into a 500+ Divisions force armed with modern equipment in all services and with units on full strength in both equipment and personel. The OTL force of 1941 was less than 200 Divisions with mainly obsolescent materiel, understrength and more important with many/most senior commander posts vacant or with very inexperienced commanders. The Barbarossa attack forec was appr. 150 Div. incl. Axis allies (IIRC 110-120 German).

So unless the Wehrmacht undergo the expansion it did in OTL wareconomy from 1942 in recordbreaking time and at least a year ahead, attacking SU will be like a good bantam weight boxer meeting a mediocre heavyweight. The bantam boxer will start scoring a lot of points, but without seriously hurting the opponent and the first time the bantam boxer is hit he is out for good.

The German Army will probably still be tactically superior, but the Red Army will not be nearly as inept as in OTL 1941 and will have overwhelming numbers (which it did not have in 1941). The best chance of the Germans would probably be the Soviets attacking first - that would give the Wehrmacht a chance to hurt a paw or two on the bear before counterattacking - perhaps even getting an old grumpy cat and a couple of battlechickens on your side - or at least have them stop poking your ass...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Just to ask the question, how do you turn an army that is ill-trained, ill-equiped and led by inexperienced officers into an army that is 2.5 times the size, well trained, well-equiped? Remembering of course that if anything your officer corps are going to be even more inexperienced and your troops even more ill-trained, not to even mention that equiping 500 divisions would require a minimum of 5-10 million rifles produced in that one year, plus 3-4 times that number in uniforms and all the other equipment required.

[eltf177]

Stalin was seriously pushing military production. Those new T-34's would have been around by the thousands a year later. And the improvements started after the Winter War Fiasco would have had another year to take hold.

Both the T-34 and the KV-1. The few around in the summer of 41 seriously delayed the Germans, can you imagine the impact of many times that number?

And I doubt the German's would have much better tanks. The Desert Campaign did force upgrades. Hopefully no Pz I's and few Pz II's would be running around. The Pz III's would all have 50mm cannons (although probably more short than long), so at least the 37mm versions wouldn't be trying to take on the T-34's and KV-1's. Some of the new Pz IV's with the L/43 cannon would be available, but probably not enough. The later versions with the L/48 probably wouldn't be out yet. SPG's would be available but I doubt anywhere near the numbers needed. And Hitler's allies certainly would have the same wreched tanks (Toldi, Turan, M13/40).

Giving Stalin an extra year to rearm is going to make matters worse...

[Earling]

Just to ask the question, how do you turn an army that is ill-trained, ill-equiped and led by inexperienced officers into an army that is 2.5 times the size, well trained, well-equiped? Remembering of course that if anything your officer corps are going to be even more inexperienced and your troops even more ill-trained, not to even mention that equiping 500 divisions would require a minimum of 5-10 million rifles produced in that one year, plus 3-4 times that number in uniforms and all the other equipment required.

I agree. This idea that the Red Army can suddenly reform just seems daft. Where do they get experience from? Troops of any stripe start off green. Doctrinally the Soviets are unlikely to suddenly come up with something new, given they have no experience of what works and what doesn't work. Without the devestating trial of fire, there isn't likely to be a significant increase in officer quality as the incompetent get removed for one reason or another.

The only impact the 500 divisions will have is that they might cause Hitler to blink, or who knows, the generals might blink so hard they actually get around to killing Hitler.. but thats not terribly likely.

I tend to think Germany is going to make a mess of the Red Army. How much of the Soviet's rushed reserves of OTL are in this 500 division army? If this force is defeated as badly as Barbarossa in OTL, does the USSR have the capacity to put that many more people into the field?

[Wozza]

I agree. This idea that the Red Army can suddenly reform just seems daft. Where do they get experience from? Troops of any stripe start off green. Doctrinally the Soviets are unlikely to suddenly come up with something new, given they have no experience of what works and what doesn't work. Without the devestating trial of fire, there isn't likely to be a significant increase in officer quality as the incompetent get removed for one reason or another.

The only impact the 500 divisions will have is that they might cause Hitler to blink, or who knows, the generals might blink so hard they actually get around to killing Hitler.. but thats not terribly likely.

I tend to think Germany is going to make a mess of the Red Army. How much of the Soviet's rushed reserves of OTL are in this 500 division army? If this force is defeated as badly as Barbarossa in OTL, does the USSR have the capacity to put that many more people into the field?

I think you underestimate the paper nature of 1941 Soviet forces, no training at all and whatever spares and support equipment they do have lost in the first few weeks.

If they can hold the Germans at bay with 500 divisions of rifle armed militia with no training then they can hold them at bay with 250-500 (cannot see this as a pre-wartime figure myself) divisions with a year's training and a lot more spares and equipment.

[Redbeard]

I agree. This idea that the Red Army can suddenly reform just seems daft. Where do they get experience from? Troops of any stripe start off green. Doctrinally the Soviets are unlikely to suddenly come up with something new, given they have no experience of what works and what doesn't work. Without the devestating trial of fire, there isn't likely to be a significant increase in officer quality as the incompetent get removed for one reason or another.

The only impact the 500 divisions will have is that they might cause Hitler to blink, or who knows, the generals might blink so hard they actually get around to killing Hitler.. but thats not terribly likely.

I tend to think Germany is going to make a mess of the Red Army. How much of the Soviet's rushed reserves of OTL are in this 500 division army? If this force is defeated as badly as Barbarossa in OTL, does the USSR have the capacity to put that many more people into the field?

I never claimed that the 1942 500+ Division Red Army would be perfect, but it would be way better, not only in numbers and materiel, but also training and leadership than the OTL 1941 army.

In OTL 1941 the Red Army was in the middle of a huge expansion meaning that not only had many senior officers been purged in the previous years, but those left also were spread out among a far greater number of units, leaving most units understrength in staff officers, and with commanders having very little experience at their level. On top of that the armoured corps, which had been disbanded after the Spanish Civil War, were reborn after the German success in France. Such changes of course create chaos, and for instance meant that many artillery units had been deprived of their motorvehicles which were allocated to the new armoured corps. This meant that many artillery units were run over by the Germans in the first days of the campaign, and the armoured corps were too new to utilse the priority given them.

The men and units that in OTL 1942 stopped the Wehrmacht were those in the tube in the 1941 plan, and most had no combat experience (most of those who got combat experience in 1941 died shortly adfterwards or were captured), but showed that the Soviet system of military schools and training centres could produce reasonably good quality units in overwhelming numbers.

Had the Germans not attacked in 1941, not only those under training/education in 1941 would have been available in 1942, but also the ones in service in the 1941 army -in OTL most of them were lost. In materiel the equipment that so stunned the Germans in 1941 would have been much more widespread, but more importantly many more if not all units had been with all their organic equipment - all in all giving them a much better chance of functioning.

For further studies on the subject I can recommend David M. Glantz, especially his: "Stumbling Colossos" about the 1941 Red Army and "Colossos Reborn" about the rebuilt Red Army. Mr. Glantz has had access to a lot of archives not yet open, and give a very interesting view into Red Army of these years. Another recommendation could be Catherine Merridale's "Ivan's War" which with first hand accounts describe the war seen from the ordinary soviet citizen.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Earling]

In OTL 1941 the Red Army was in the middle of a huge expansion meaning that not only had many senior officers been purged in the previous years, but those left also were spread out among a far greater number of units, leaving most units understrength in staff officers, and with commanders having very little experience at their level. On top of that the armoured corps, which had been disbanded after the Spanish Civil War, were reborn after the German success in France. Such changes of course create chaos, and for instance meant that many artillery units had been deprived of their motorvehicles which were allocated to the new armoured corps. This meant that many artillery units were run over by the Germans in the first days of the campaign, and the armoured corps were too new to utilse the priority given them.

So you don't see any danger that the limited senior officers with any experience shall be even more spread out throughout this expanded army? You don't see any danger from lots of new officers with no experience being put in positions of command? Yes the Soviets will have armoured divisions with some modern equipment but what of it? Were they planning on scrapping all of their 30's era equipment? If not all of those divisions are a liability. Is there any evidence that the Soviets were capable of putting a viable doctrine for the use of armour into practice in 1942? Deep Operations after all did not truely manifest untill relatively late in the war. It seems likely Stalin and Stavka will demand that they hold the line, or worse counter-attack, as per OTL, leading to a similar catastrophe.

You will have the traditional Soviet problem. Some formations shall be good, having been well trained with good officers and with good equipment. Some however will be quite useless.

The men and units that in OTL 1942 stopped the Wehrmacht were those in the tube in the 1941 plan, and most had no combat experience (most of those who got combat experience in 1941 died shortly adfterwards or were captured), but showed that the Soviet system of military schools and training centres could produce reasonably good quality units in overwhelming numbers.

Sorry where did the Red Army stop the Wehrmahct in 1942? I don't think you can compare the situation at Stalingrad to the situation far to the west in open country. The Wehrmacht after all effectively cut the Red Army apart before they reached the gate of that city. The Soviets could perhaps try to turn Kiev and other cities into similar sites where any advantage the Wehrmacht has is thrown away but it would involve much more pressure on their logistics and much less for Germany.

Further more you have the fact, rarely mentioned, that the Wehrmacht took considerable losses in the winter of 1941-2 outside Moscow. So their performance in 1942 would likely have been better than OTL.

[Redbeard]

So you don't see any danger that the limited senior officers with any experience shall be even more spread out throughout this expanded army? You don't see any danger from lots of new officers with no experience being put in positions of command? Yes the Soviets will have armoured divisions with some modern equipment but what of it? Were they planning on scrapping all of their 30's era equipment? If not all of those divisions are a liability. Is there any evidence that the Soviets were capable of putting a viable doctrine for the use of armour into practice in 1942? Deep Operations after all did not truely manifest untill relatively late in the war. It seems likely Stalin and Stavka will demand that they hold the line, or worse counter-attack, as per OTL, leading to a similar catastrophe.

You will have the traditional Soviet problem. Some formations shall be good, having been well trained with good officers and with good equipment. Some however will be quite useless.



Sorry where did the Red Army stop the Wehrmahct in 1942? I don't think you can compare the situation at Stalingrad to the situation far to the west in open country. The Wehrmacht after all effectively cut the Red Army apart before they reached the gate of that city. The Soviets could perhaps try to turn Kiev and other cities into similar sites where any advantage the Wehrmacht has is thrown away but it would involve much more pressure on their logistics and much less for Germany.

Further more you have the fact, rarely mentioned, that the Wehrmacht took considerable losses in the winter of 1941-2 outside Moscow. So their performance in 1942 would likely have been better than OTL.

The Soviet training machine will produce at least as many staff officers as in OTL but on top of that thay have the officers lost in OTL 1941. So no I don't believe they will be more thinly spread out than in 1941, on the contrary I on the background of not at least Glantz' thorough research predict that it will be a Red Army on close to full strength.

If we say the Soviets stopped the Wehrmacht in 41, 42 or 43 really doesn't matter in this context, it anyway was with the army planned pre Barbarossa and with most personel fresh from training centres and schools. For an insight into and example from the Red Army rising after the initial defeats I can recommend Isaak Kobylyanskiy's "From Stalingrad to Pillau" - a Soviet artillery officer's memoirs.

Even in OTL 1941 the Wehrmacht wasn't big enough to decisively utilise its tactical and operational victories - in this ATL the enemy will have a coherrent command structure, much better equipment - and be three times as many.

Sure we can think of this and that detail in which the Wehrmacht could have improved, but even if they come with 4000 tanks instead of 3000 and all Pz38s are replaced with Pz IIIs with 50mm guns (about as much as is possible withoutb ASBs), it is a very poor comfort if the Red Army has many times that number of T34s and KV1s. Sure the Wehrmacht will still be tactically superior, but the gap will be much smaller compared to the Red Army paralysed from the start in OTL 1941. It must be remembered that although ill led, if led at all, most Red Army units fought with extreme tenacity. Even with obsolescent doctrines just a few drops of mediocre leadership will increase the fighting value of such units tremendously. The Germans will probably still win most battles at the border, but they will be much more bloody, and Red Army reserves immediately available.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[eltf177]

I feel Steffan's hit it right on the head. If the Red Army is substantially stronger will the German's be able to make the same sort of breakthroughs they historically did? IMHO, no.

The delays in mopping up pockets of trapped troops who continued to fight until the last or melted away to become partisans will be even worse and the blitzkrieg will slow to a crawl. When winter comes they'll be further away from Moscow than in OTL and the following year will see even fewer breakthroughs and less ability to exploit those that do happen.

[CalBear]

Hi

I've always wondered what if Hitler delayed the invasion Russia by a full year to say May 1942?

To my mind several things come out;

A; More reinforcements sent to Rommel in North Africa

B; Continued improvement/ development of the German armed forces

C; Further resources directed to the U boat campaign

Any thoughts?

Mark


A. The better to be captured after Operation Torch? The problem in Africa was lack of heavy lift. This limited the amount of armor that the Germans could send to the Afrika Corps as well as the amount of fuel. More men just puts those troops in a much more pleasant PoW camp that the ones run by the NKVD.

B. What further development? The changes in German armor, especially the upgunning, only occurred after the Soviet T-34 was encountered.

C. Germany was shoving U-boats into the Atlantic as fast as she could build them. Not invading the USSR won't provide more slipways or shipwrights.

and now

D. Lets Hitler invade the USSR AFTER strapping on the United States, demonstrating his lunacy to an even higher degree.

E. Allows the USSR an extra year to build T-34s.

F. With just a bit of luck, allows Berlin to eat the first nuclear weapon.

[Churchill]

So why can Germany supply the Afrika Korps any better than IOTL now again? They'll still be dependent on Italian shipping, and their codes will stil be cracked. And reaching the Caucasus goes into ASBland. Not that mounting a major invasion through those mountains will be very logistically plausible either...

On the other hand, the Soviets get a lot of time to reorganise, re-equip, and fortify the new border.

Because they can take out Malta and will have air superiority in N Africa and the M East.

[eltf177]

B. What further development? The changes in German armor, especially the upgunning, only occurred after the Soviet T-34 was encountered.

As I mentioned, the Pz IV Special was developed in response to the Grant in the Desert Campaign. But there won't be any Tiger I's or Panthers (both developed in response to the Soviet KV-1 and T-34).

[Karlos]

I guess the main changes would be regarding what happened in the west during that year.
Sure, this '42 Barbarrossa would be more difficult for the germans IF things in the west are more or less like OTL.
But, couldn't the germans have defeated the british in NA by then? Eliminating Baku's oilfields (by invasion or air attack) could change a lot soviet production or even their ability to move tanks and planes.
It is even possible that the british would have agreed to a peace treaty by then (after losing Suez, maybe).
Or, would Hitler still declare war on the USA in dec. 41, with the soviets not at war? Would the japanese attack Pearl with no german-soviet war?
No USA in the war could mean big changes that would help the germans in the east war, even in TTL. Much more planes and production, more fuel, more troops for the east.
With no war in the west, or at least a limited one (against the RAF alone) the germans could have gained air superiority in the east, and that would make much difficult the soviets offensives of OTL in 43-44.

[merlin]

It is interesting to read the divergence of views here, some believing it was better to wait, others that would be worse for Germany.

Some say with the time delay, Germany could have evicted the British from the Med. and N Africa. Others counter by saying that an overwhelming reinforcement was not practical - the ports of Italian North Africa couldn't take them, even if there was the shipping, even if there was the lorries to transport them to battle!
Even if the Germans take Suez, so what! Which way then - south to Kenya, or north-east to Iraq - either way is a long way, with a long logistical tail.

Just as the 'Desert' was a vast 'live' training ground for the British, so the Eastern Front was for the German forces. Whilst Soviet tank factories were mass producing T-34s & KVs, why would the Germans be producing more tanks, with only the British to worry about? To counter the Soviet tanks - why they don't know about them yet!
When, the Germans met the T-34s in '41 they were in small numbers and they could deal with them with superior tactics, in a later Campaign they won't have that option!
In OTL, many of the Skoda tanks were passed over to Germany's Allies, and production was continued using the chassis for self-propelled artillery & anti-tank vehicles - because of the demands of the war in the East.
Just as the Soviet army would have been re-equiped, so to would the Red Air Force, though the Luftwaffe would've an 'edge' the qualitive difference would not have been so great.

If the Germans had left it till '42, they might have been too late, the Soviet attack in '42 against them with superior equipement might have knocked them completely off-balance.

[Earling]

The Soviet training machine will produce at least as many staff officers as in OTL but on top of that thay have the officers lost in OTL 1941. So no I don't believe they will be more thinly spread out than in 1941, on the contrary I on the background of not at least Glantz' thorough research predict that it will be a Red Army on close to full strength.

Yes, but without the cull of Barbarossa and all the fighting up to 1943 you have lots of bad officers still in place. It was the war on the Eastern Front, not the military reform, that caused the evolution of the Red Army to a force which could match Germany in 1943 on open ground and go onto to run them over in 44-45. People learned on the job and these were passed onto new recruits. People who are not up to scratch were removed. I don't see how you can consider the situation where the bulk of the Red Army is just serving as a garrison force in Eastern Europe to a force which had been fighting for its life.

If we say the Soviets stopped the Wehrmacht in 41, 42 or 43 really doesn't matter in this context, it anyway was with the army planned pre Barbarossa and with most personel fresh from training centres and schools. For an insight into and example from the Red Army rising after the initial defeats I can recommend Isaak Kobylyanskiy's "From Stalingrad to Pillau" - a Soviet artillery officer's memoirs.

It matters alot because it is a question of quality. The Red Army could stop the Wehrmacht cold by 1943 and effectively got progressively better and better as the war went on. Yes you can point to how the Soviets got better. You can also however point to how the Germans got worse.

Even in OTL 1941 the Wehrmacht wasn't big enough to decisively utilise its tactical and operational victories - in this ATL the enemy will have a coherrent command structure, much better equipment - and be three times as many.

The Wehrmacht seemed more than capable of killing approximately 800,000 Soviets and capturing somewhere in the region of two million more. They overstretched themselves and failed to take Leningrad and Moscow true, but surely that was a strategical error rather than a tactical failure. The situation was only not decisive because the Soviets could rebuild new armies. If this 500 division army is forced into cauldrons (which, given its complete inexperience, seems very likely regardless of the number of barely mobile rifle divisions it possesses) you are just going to have even greater coups. Rebuilding will be all the harder.

Sure we can think of this and that detail in which the Wehrmacht could have improved, but even if they come with 4000 tanks instead of 3000 and all Pz38s are replaced with Pz IIIs with 50mm guns (about as much as is possible withoutb ASBs), it is a very poor comfort if the Red Army has many times that number of T34s and KV1s. Sure the Wehrmacht will still be tactically superior, but the gap will be much smaller compared to the Red Army paralysed from the start in OTL 1941. It must be remembered that although ill led, if led at all, most Red Army units fought with extreme tenacity. Even with obsolescent doctrines just a few drops of mediocre leadership will increase the fighting value of such units tremendously. The Germans will probably still win most battles at the border, but they will be much more bloody, and Red Army reserves immediately available.

Well it might be argued the Wehrmacht could have upgraded (and would have produced more) Pz IVs as well. The KwK 40 L/43 should mean they would not be completely defenceless against T-34s. While you might argue such would not be so urgent without the experience of Soviet armour the growing weakness of German guns was apparent on the North African front, so some progress in that area might not be unreasonable.

This is ultimately the rub. You believe the leadership of the Red Army shall drastically increase in both quantity and quality and was in the process of doing so because of this reform. I do not share that view. The reform, while no doubt hopeful, meant training untested doctrine, producing untested weapons and using untested men. It will not represent a sudden panacea to the woes of the Red Army at the time of Barbarossa. Green forces are green forces. The grave strategic errors which so undermined the Red Army in OTL are likely to remain because the Soviets shall if anything be more arrogant in their ability rather than less.

You are proposing that the Soviet army can expand three fold in more or less every area over the course of a year and drastically increase in quality at the same time. I don't see it. Expanding armies reduces their quality.

[Admiral Canaris]

As I mentioned, the Pz IV Special was developed in response to the Grant in the Desert Campaign. But there won't be any Tiger I's or Panthers (both developed in response to the Soviet KV-1 and T-34).

Actually, Tiger-I was a pre-Barbarossa design (hence why it didn't feature sloped armour). It'd still be around. Panthers and Tiger-IIs, no. Which might be good for the Germans, actually, since the upgunned Panzer-IV is very decent itself and much less maintenance-heavy/accident-prone and much more easily manufactured (something like 1/5th the manhours).

[DeathDemon]

Actually, Tiger-I was a pre-Barbarossa design (hence why it didn't feature sloped armour). It'd still be around. Panthers and Tiger-IIs, no. Which might be good for the Germans, actually, since the upgunned Panzer-IV is very decent itself and much less maintenance-heavy/accident-prone and much more easily manufactured (something like 1/5th the manhours).
Not to mention they can travel more than 50 miles without needing rail transportation, they can maneuver when going backwards and their chassis wasn't made for a tank that was 10 tons lighter.

[lonewulf44]

A.) I believe it would be a given that the British would have been swept aside if attention and resources were actually diverted to the area on any scale higher than the OTL trickle. Rommel probably could have pulled it off if the man had just been given the amount of fuel he needed. Let alone if he had another PzrDiv or two and appropriate equipment and men. The Luftwaffe could have bombed and blasted Malta even more and I think a continued effort to strangle the little base out would have easily succeeded in time. Without that thorn supplies could have almost freely flowed to the D. Fox. If Rommel crosses the Suez does that mean an Automatic Turkish entry on the side of the Axis or could/would they remain neutral?

B.) Development would have probably continued on a grand scale in aviation and technology as a whole but the Pzr tech would have probably continued to lack without the rude awakening the T-34 gave the Germans. They could have fine tuned a lot of things and just built a lot more prepping for a 1942 invasion and numbers speak louder in this area I believe. Also the Soviet leadership would have been at best just the same but possibly even worse if Stalin degraded it even further in a year.

C.) I'm not sure this would change all that much. As much as time would have helped the Kreigsmarine before the war, at this time I just don't see that much of an increase in resources being sent to the navy. I think a lot of the energy would go into aviation and consolidate while preparing for the Soviet invasion.

C

[Admiral Canaris]

Not to mention they can travel more than 50 miles without needing rail transportation, they can maneuver when going backwards and their chassis wasn't made for a tank that was 10 tons lighter.

I went by the Panther alone. The "King Tiger" was nothing if not a huge waste of resources.

[DeathDemon]

I went by the Panther alone. The "King Tiger" was nothing if not a huge waste of resources.
Actually, I was talking about the Panther as well.

[Riain]

The supply problems in the Med, like those in the SU, were solveable, but simply throwing more of the same resources isn't it.

[Redbeard]

@Earling

Only a very small fraction of the RA troops fighting in 1942 and later had done frontline service in 1941 - that army simply was gone. The army winning the war was raised from scratch but on the basis of the pre-war expansion plan, and with units comming from training centres directly to the front. And BTW incompetent leaders were sacked in all armies - try and study the US Army in WWII and it could resemble a purge. A WWII army didn't gain its combat value by veterans passing on experience to recruits - that is a NCO level/war movie oversimplification - and only fit to a few extra field tricks about how to keep you socks dry etc. Indeed very handy (wet feet sucks), but the army gains its value by command, communication and control from top to bottom - and that first of all require training, training and training.

Sure doctrines, ToE etc. changed during the war, but mainly to fit to the training level of units over time. As the war progressed, and the Soviet system more leisurely could train new units, the doctrines and organisation gradually got more complicated - not so much because the men had more combat experience. Combat experience in itself rarely produce more than exhaustion and nut-cases, but relentless training can do wonders - and is ultimately tested in combat. Operations of course also was influenced by previous battle or manoeuvre experience, but not many if any armies changed their doctrines fundamentally during WWII - but corners of the existing doctrine were developed or utilised to fit the current training level and situation.

I suppose you now have guessed what I'm getting to: A Red Army given time to expand and train according to plan, will be a dreadful opponent compared to the half-finished 1941 one - even if it still has hopelessly inflexible doctrines (a Red/Soviet Army birthmark). Such doctrines are likely to increase you casualties - but given enough territory and troops to take from - it really doesn't matter. Please remark that I do not prerequisit a reform of the Red Army - only that it follows its expansion and training plan so that it can perform according to its doctrines.

From this also follows that you should not expect the Wehrmacht to be able to perform the great encirclements of OTL. The Red Army will be too many and much under command and the Germans too few. And even if the Germans gain can destroy in the region of 150 Divisions - there are 350+ more to go - here and now!

In the OTL campaign the German failures wasn't just a question of strategic errors or indecisiveness - but if the Germans at all had the strength needed to overwhelm the SU. I do not belong to those saying that Germany never could have won that campaign, but it was some very small windows of opportunity. And if we now expand the Red Army to 500 trained Divisions I'm certain the German chance is non-existent - even if we give the Germans all plausible improvements in the extra year.

I do not agree that the OTL Wehrmacht of 1942 or 1943 was worse than that of 1941. Even with the losses of Moscow and Stalingrad the manpower sources weren't depleted yet, and training probably better than ever, as was equipment But in 1942, and certainly in 1943 the Wehrmacht did not any longer meet enemies fighting "headless" - that made a huge difference - even if the Germans heads on average still were a little smarter. By 1944 I agree that much of the Wehrmacht had deteriorated, but still and right through to the end with a core of extremely competent units.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[ac220v]

The Russian colossus...has been underestimated by us. (no full citation in English online, so my translation from another translation follows... - AC.) This is true in regards to all the industrial and organisational capabilities, to their logistics, and especially, to Russians' purely military capabilities. At the beginning of the war there were about 200 enemy divisions. Now there are, by our estimation, 360 enemy divisions. Of course, those divisions aren't as good equipped and staffed as ours, and their officers are worse tacticians than ours, but, nonetheles those divisions are here. (my translation ends - AC.) whenever a dozen divisions are destroyed the Russians replace them with another dozen.


/Halder's war diary, August 11, 1941./

[Grimm Reaper]

Even if we assume no improvements in training, the officer corps, etc in the Red Army over this year, which seems most unlikely to me, the additions in sheer firepower alone can only mean much higher German losses and likely a reduced rate of advance.

[missingtux]

Something no one has mentioned and that seems odd to me is that if Barbarossa is delayed and the Soviets make enormous quantities of the T-34 and KV-1 tanks wouldn't the Germans have a much better chance of getting tipped off to what the Soviets were doing? That alone could have put some of the upgraded weapons under discussion here to be implemented or hurried into production ASAP. Germans didn't have to be blindsided by the superior tanks of the Soviets, could have prepared for the encounter.

[CalBear]

Not to mention they can travel more than 50 miles without needing rail transportation, they can maneuver when going backwards and their chassis wasn't made for a tank that was 10 tons lighter.

But.. But...

They were BIG!:p

[DeathDemon]

But.. But...

They were BIG!:p
True, but so are pillboxes. :D
And pillboxes don't spontaneously combust. :)

[MUC]

If Germany does indeed postopone Barbarossa but still does not manage to kick Britain out of the war by mid 1942, you may indeed have Stalin going for a preemptive strike against the Germans sometime in 1943.

[Nietzsche]

True, but so are pillboxes. :D
And pillboxes don't spontaneously combust. :)

Pillboxes also don't sound like death incarnate lumbering towards you(albeit..at a pace of 2 feet an hour..).

[Karlos]

I still think that the most important factor is the west front.
Imagine a purely Reich-soviet confrontation in summer 1942.

[Redbeard]

I still think that the most important factor is the west front.
Imagine a purely Reich-soviet confrontation in summer 1942.

I think we will have troubles in bringing a plausible AND succesful German invasion of GB in time to be ready for an attack on SU by mid 42. But even if, that will only reinforce the OTL German "victory disease" that had them not take their enemies serious and so stayed in peace economy mode until well into 1942. I'm not sure even the best intelligence on what is really happening in the east will cure the victory disease - rulers tend to only believe in intel. saying what they already believe.

But if the Soviets attack first, the Germans might end on top. First because a major offensive into Europe will be a much bigger challenge for the Red Army than a defence of Mother Russia (aided by Father Winter). A Soviet offensive might gain much advance initially, but I doubt fast enough to either overwhelm the Wehrmacht or to reach German core areas before they bog down. That of course doesn't exclude the offensive being resumed in strength, but this would be THE chance for Germany to gain wholehearted support from other nations - already conquerred or not. In OTL, at least initially, the "campaign against Bolschevism" had widespread support from circles otherwise quite hostile to Germany and/or nazism.

So when it comes to the big counterattack it will be from an industrial and population base many times bigger the OTL one and not at least against a Red Army already having shot its bolt (and with little domestic legitemacy) - but it will still be a long way to the Urals.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[ac220v]

Something no one has mentioned and that seems odd to me is that if Barbarossa is delayed and the Soviets make enormous quantities of the T-34 and KV-1 tanks wouldn't the Germans have a much better chance of getting tipped off to what the Soviets were doing? That alone could have put some of the upgraded weapons under discussion here to be implemented or hurried into production ASAP. Germans didn't have to be blindsided by the superior tanks of the Soviets, could have prepared for the encounter.
Nope. Germans did know about these types IOTL, but largerly dismissed them, and not entirely without reason.
Everybody knows now that T-34 was revolutionary design, and that it worked. But back then it wasn't anything combat-proven, and Germans did face some pretty heavily armored tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1) during French campaign without much trouble.

Of course, T-34 had more powerful engine and much more of a gun (and the way Kotin managed to cram all this into mass-producible design was that revolution) but I just can see how German generals might dismiss T-34 as "yet another overarmored design, just like French used to have."

[FloRida]

Germany and The Soviet Union produced roughly the same amount of tanks while at war in 1942. To assume that if they weren't attacked the Soviets would have pumped out more is ridiculous. Waiting a year isn't the problem. I believe that the Germans would have won had the captured Moscow in 1941. If they simply started the campaign to Moscow a mere two weeks earlier it would have been enough time to reach Moscow before the Siberian Reinforcements get there and the winter really sets in. I think the amount of propaganda produced from the capture of Moscow, as well as the demoralized effect on the Russians (which would be multiplied by them getting their ass whooped for about 6 months now) would have been enough to win the war for Germany.

LOL at the Soviet Union invading Germany. Even if they were armed to the teeth and outnumber the Germans/Axis by an outragous figure. The lack of traing/ tactics would have limited their success. The Soviet miltary could not have been successful until they learned what they were doing wrong and what the Germans were doing right. Once they started fighting like the Germans thats when they started to have success. I think a Soviet invasion of Germany prior to a German invasion would have led to them losing the war. The Germans would have felt desperate and they wouldn't have wasted resources on needless or ideaological goals. Also no way the Soviets are anywhere near ready to invade Germany prior to 1943 and even that would be a stretch.

[DeathDemon]

Germany and The Soviet Union produced roughly the same amount of tanks while at war in 1942. To assume that if they weren't attacked the Soviets would have pumped out more is ridiculous. [...]
Not again...
I will once more, just like the last time you claimed this, come up with the numbers:
From "Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet war 1941-1945" by Evan Mawdsley:
Comparative armaments production, Jan. 1941-Dec. 1942

Rifles: Germany: 1,359,000 (1941) 1,370,000 (1942); USSR: 2,421,000 (1941) 4,049,000 (1942)
MG: Germany: 96,000 (1941) 117,000 (1942); USSR: 149,000 (1941) 356,000 (1942)
Artillery: Germany: 22,000 (1941) 41,000 (1942); USSR: 41,000 (1941) 128,000 (1942)
Tanks/SPG: Germany: 3,800 (1941) 6,200 (1942); USSR: 6,600 (1941) 24,700 (1942)
Combat Aircraft: Germany: 8,400 (1941) 11,600 (1942); USSR: 12,400 (1941) 21,700 (1942)

[ac220v]

And Soviet invasion simply won't happen.
Why? Stalin was absolutely, definitely not wanting to help Britain in any way. (His belief that most of the intelligence on Barbarossa was British provocation is quite a proof, if one is needed. ) On the other hand, he got almost everything he wanted to get in Europe, and the longer Hitler would delay the invasion, the better for Stalin.

[Urban fox]

I’m surprised no-one mentioned the Stalin line. Soviet troops would've had an extra year to fortify the borders areas and set up a defence-in-depth.

[Churchill]

I’m surprised no-one mentioned the Stalin line. Soviet troops would've had an extra year to fortify the borders areas and set up a defence-in-depth.

This would have led to more Soviets been surrounded.
What was needed was a mobile defence.

[Jukra]

One aspect which could be noted that Germans would probably be able to use Mediterranean and Black Sea as a logistics route if they postponed the invasion to 1942 and used resources in Middle East. This would mean that instead of supplying the whole circus via use of railroads much of the supplies could have been shipped through Northern Italian and Southern French harbors using German-Italian and German-French rail links. Vice versa, the resources grabbed from Southern SU could have been shipped to Italy and France.

The distance in air kilometers from Berlin to Stalingrad, for example, is some 2200km's, while distance from Black Sea SPOD, say Rostov-na-Danu is just 450km's.

Yes, Germans did use Black Sea as a logistics pipeline even in OTL, but in OTL they did not have significant use of trans-mediterranean shipping. Basically they had to transfer supplies either via use of railroads or Danube to Black Sea ports and then transship the supplies to ports in Ukraine.

[merlin]

And Soviet invasion simply won't happen.
Why? Stalin was absolutely, definitely not wanting to help Britain in any way. (His belief that most of the intelligence on Barbarossa was British provocation is quite a proof, if one is needed. ) On the other hand, he got almost everything he wanted to get in Europe, and the longer Hitler would delay the invasion, the better for Stalin.

Disagree.
What has 'helping the British' got to do with a Russian invasion? It would have happened for Russian benefit, not to help the British.
It was because Stalin wanted more, that convinced Hitler to proceed the the German invasion. He sent Luftwaffe units to Rumania, as a 'line in the sand' to show Stalin that Rumania was in the German sphere of influence (Germany needed the oil).
So yes, it had to be '41.

[Redbeard]

Germany and The Soviet Union produced roughly the same amount of tanks while at war in 1942. To assume that if they weren't attacked the Soviets would have pumped out more is ridiculous. Waiting a year isn't the problem. I believe that the Germans would have won had the captured Moscow in 1941. If they simply started the campaign to Moscow a mere two weeks earlier it would have been enough time to reach Moscow before the Siberian Reinforcements get there and the winter really sets in. I think the amount of propaganda produced from the capture of Moscow, as well as the demoralized effect on the Russians (which would be multiplied by them getting their ass whooped for about 6 months now) would have been enough to win the war for Germany.

LOL at the Soviet Union invading Germany. Even if they were armed to the teeth and outnumber the Germans/Axis by an outragous figure. The lack of traing/ tactics would have limited their success. The Soviet miltary could not have been successful until they learned what they were doing wrong and what the Germans were doing right. Once they started fighting like the Germans thats when they started to have success. I think a Soviet invasion of Germany prior to a German invasion would have led to them losing the war. The Germans would have felt desperate and they wouldn't have wasted resources on needless or ideaological goals. Also no way the Soviets are anywhere near ready to invade Germany prior to 1943 and even that would be a stretch.


What do you base your assumptions on?

Why/how would a Red Army left in peace until 1942 be laccking training and doctrines?

How is it, that an ATL where you don't have to relocate most of the industry doesn't have prodiction improve compared to OTL?

In what way did the Soviets start fighting like the Germans? I can only see that they stuck to their own methods and doctrines for the whole war, but just got better at it.

Why do you think we need to go to 1943 earliest to have the Red Army be ready for largescale offensive operation? Might it be that you are inspired by OTL? But as this is ATL with the PoD being no German-Soviet war until 1942 I assume you mean that the difference between loosing almost your entire peacetime army and being left in peace for another year to complete a huge expansion programme is insignificant? Can you explain how?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Redbeard]

This would have led to more Soviets been surrounded.
What was needed was a mobile defence.

Fortifications and mobile defence are not mutually exclusive. Soviet doctrine combined the two with great potential, but in OTL 1941 the original fortified regions on the old Soviet-Polish border had been dismantled and new ones not yet ready at the new border and the mobile forces were in disarray following the ongoing expanison programme and several re-organisations.

In this ATL the fortified regions and many of the front line RA units are indeed going to be initially surrounded, but considering how big difficulties the Wehrmact had in OTL in containing the encirclements they might easily meet their Stalingrad much earlier in this ATL.

One aspect which could be noted that Germans would probably be able to use Mediterranean and Black Sea as a logistics route if they postponed the invasion to 1942 and used resources in Middle East. This would mean that instead of supplying the whole circus via use of railroads much of the supplies could have been shipped through Northern Italian and Southern French harbors using German-Italian and German-French rail links. Vice versa, the resources grabbed from Southern SU could have been shipped to Italy and France.

The distance in air kilometers from Berlin to Stalingrad, for example, is some 2200km's, while distance from Black Sea SPOD, say Rostov-na-Danu is just 450km's.

Yes, Germans did use Black Sea as a logistics pipeline even in OTL, but in OTL they did not have significant use of trans-mediterranean shipping. Basically they had to transfer supplies either via use of railroads or Danube to Black Sea ports and then transship the supplies to ports in Ukraine.

This preconditions at least two things: That the Germans can utilsie 1942 to gain control over the MEd. and 2. That they reach the Black Sea at all.

Ad. 1.
A huge army is not much worth in the Med. and we need a lot of butterflies to wear the RN enough down to have the Axis control the (eastern) Med. enough to send large scale supplies on that route. Axis merchant tonnage in the Med. anyway was scarce. The best option would be some kind of peace agreement with the British Empire in 1941, after that I'm sure the Turks wouldn't be the problem.

Ad. 2. But even if we somehow can arrange a route through the Med. and Black Sea, we also need the Axis to secure a good harbour on the Black Sea coast. Odessa is still too far away from strategic objectives to make a difference, as is Sevastopol. Rostov-Na-Donu indeed has a fine position, but in OTL it took a year to get that far for the Wehrmacht. IMHO the war is decided at Moscow, if the Wehrmacht can take and hold Moscow in the first campaign season, the Soviets will have severe difficulties in rebuilding and redeploying for the next season. That requires logistic improvements in central Russia (railway), but in this ATL I doubt the Wehrmacht will get that far.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Slamet]

Nope. Germans did know about these types IOTL, but largerly dismissed them, and not entirely without reason.
Everybody knows now that T-34 was revolutionary design, and that it worked. But back then it wasn't anything combat-proven, and Germans did face some pretty heavily armored tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1) during French campaign without much trouble.

Of course, T-34 had more powerful engine and much more of a gun (and the way Kotin managed to cram all this into mass-producible design was that revolution) but I just can see how German generals might dismiss T-34 as "yet another overarmored design, just like French used to have."

Of course, you could always have the scenario where somebody actually defects across the border... The Germans could then test the T-34 and who knows? Maybe the Panther mk. 2 will be able to cram the 75mm KwK 42 L70 into an easier chassis to mass produce.

[Slamet]

This would have led to more Soviets been surrounded.
What was needed was a mobile defence.

The Stalin Line :
1) Had a depth of 30-50 km
2) Wasn't so vulnerable to flanking, as the ends were in the Baltic and in the Black Sea
3) Built deep inside Soviet territory, less probing eyes and had a buffer security zone to weaken the enemy first
4) Was actually built to defend against armored attacks
5) Correct if I'm Wrong; Had gaps in it to allow the enemy to go through these gaps, then the Soviet armored groups could cut them off. Or could put minefields in them.
6) Was built with encirclement in mind; those defence points could fight on long after isolation (tunnels etc.)

That and the fact that by 1942, IF Stalin had kept the line, he could've expanded the line to become a defence-in-depth line like in Kursk, made more lines stretching until the Dneipr if he wanted, had more AT-guns in stock, had more T-34s and KV-1s for armored counterattacks.

@Redbeard
Have you got any book recommendations about the Soviet Army in the 1930s?

[Redbeard]

@Redbeard
Have you got any book recommendations about the Soviet Army in the 1930s?

David Glantz' books on the Red Army IMHO are well written, well researched and with many new and interesting facts and points, not at least through the now (more) open Soviet archives. Glantz also apear to be relatively free of "agendas" apart from finding the truth.

I don't know of Glantz (yet) having made a book on the 30s as a whole, but "Stumbling Collossus" about the army lost in 1941 is an excellent insight into the Soviet Military before Babarossa. As a supplement Karl Heinz Frieser's book on the Wehrmacht "Blitzkrieg Legend" is good, as it very well describes how ill-prepared, but lucky, the Wehrmacht was for the various campaigns.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard