Theya re not going to start terror bombing German cities without being provoked when for the time being, the Germans can do it 10 times worse.
There is little basis for this. Bomber Command was constituted well before the Blitz with the specific intent of conducting strategic bombardment of German cities.
Now it could be 1 year. It could be 10 years.
If Germany can't force Britain into peace by 1942 at the latest, it will have to deal with Britain and the US.
What is a good example of this? Kursk? Didn't British intelligence happen with that?
Not really. The British did try to tell the Soviets that the Germans were going to do it but...
A: The Soviets already knew because of their own spies within Britain (like the Cambridge 6) had already told them what the British were going to tell them.
B: The Soviets already knew because of their spies within Germany (like Red Orchestra).
C: The Soviets had already deduced it.
Both A and B apply ITTL. Indeed, it applies as early as 1941. But those intelligence warnings were wasted as Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would risk a two-front war. At one point, a Soviet spy in the Luftwaffe provided basically the entire German air support plan for the first day and Stalin dismissed it as a British plant trying to provoke the USSR into fighting a war with Germany. His denialism was based on the fact that he desperately did not want to have to fight Germany for at least another year and his rationalization was that Britain was trying to provoke the Soviet Union into the whole thing.
By 1942 ITTL, neither of those apply.
The fact the Soviets knew a ton of the details about Citadel and largely via their own intelligence services long before it commenced is a major part of the story and the fact you don't know it is telling.
OTL, the Germans even successfully attacked right through the Carpathian Mountains.
No they did not. The main axis of advance in the south primarily were from northwest of L'vov and out of the Romanian plain to the South. Only minor holding forces were deployed in the Carpathians.
No, it still favors the Germans man for man, actually.
War is not purely about being better on a man-man basis. If it was, then the Germans would have won even despite being at war with the USSR, the UK, and the United States.
Further, being that the Germans actually broke through in the southern salient in Kursk in OTL
Incorrect. They managed to pummel their way through 3 of the defense lines. Unfortunately for them, the Soviet defensive belt was made up of
6 such lines and the German infantry was incapable of holding the ground gained against the repeated Soviet counterattacks.
If Kursk had just been a bunch of fortified towns and villages, it would have just been a matter of time for the Germans to reduce it. The key to Kursk was that the Soviets had strong counter attack forces at all levels. As the Germans penetrated they found themselves continually hit from all sides.
Kursk is a example of the superiority of an aggressive maneuver defense anchored by fortified lines over just a bunch of static fortresses. The Germans were actually defeated because their
own infantry, lacking sufficient armour support, were unable to defend the ground they had captured against tanks.
And you know what? The kind of maneuver defense anchored by fortified lines I just described? It was the kind of defensive set-up the Soviets intended to have in place by 1942. How about that...
And, if they break through, they will encircle forward Russian elements.
This pretends that the Soviets are just going to sit there and do nothing in response. In reality they will not just fight defensively but use local and operational reserves to continuously counter-attack the spearheads which would already be worn down breaking through the Molotov-Voroshilov line, and pulling back in the exposed sections. Furthermore, the prolonged defensive battle will allow them to bring forces from their strategic reserve and entrench them in the path of the German spearhead, so the already-exhausted Germans get sucked right back into yet another grind before they can properly exploit their breakthrough.
It is impossible for it to be as bad at Kursk, even half as bad. The lines are many times larger.
And the Soviets forces are not only larger, but much more skilled and much better equipped, in heavy fortifications. Meanwhile, the Germans will be little different terms of skill or numbers and will not have the element of surprise.
What we probably see is something similar to OTL Barbarossa, but with much worse German losses (something like the end of 1941 losses but at the end of the first phase of the offensive.)
If the Germans suffer 1941-esque losses just breaking through the Molotov-Voroshilov line, then they will definitely be unable to appropriately exploit any breakthroughs before the Soviets can plug the gap.
Being that OTL the Germans were willing to continue despite the losses
Which is why their offensives would implode so spectacularly. Barbarossa at Moscow, Blue at Stalingrad, and Kursk.
they will be able to begin the second phase of the offensive against the Stalin Line, which at this point will be much weaker
.
The second phase of the offensive will never kick off. The Germans will be too tired to pull it off.
German logisitics would not be nearly as stretched, which was the main reason for German failure in 1941, not endless Russian tanks and soldiers.
This is just wrong... as the foremost Western expert on the Eastern Front put it...
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Beat Hitler by David Glantz said:
The superb German fighting machine was defeated by more than distance. The German rapier, designed to end conflict cleanly and efficiently, was dulled by repeated and often clumsy blows from a simple, dull, but very large Soviet bludgeon. That bludgeon took the form of successive waves of newly mobilized armies, each taking its toll of the invaders before shattering and being replaced by the next wave. Its mobilization capability saved the Soviet Union from destruction in 1941. While the German command worried about keeping a handful of panzer divisions operational, the Stavka raised and fielded tens of reserve armies. These armies armies were neither well equipped nor well trained. Often the most one could say of them was that they were there, they fought, they bled, and they inflicted damage on their foes. These armies, numbering as many as 96, ultimately proved that quantity possesses a virtue of its own.
If the Red Army had not been the main component of why Barbarossa had failed, then the Germans would have taken Moscow by the end of July.
Now ITTL, these counter-attacks will be less clumsy, much more powerful, and be conducted against German forces who are still fighting their way through defensive positions instead of rolling across open country.
The Russians outnumbered the Germans in Kursk more than 2 to 1.
3:1 actually and that is in the entire area of operations. In the local sectors, the Germans started with superiority but lost it as the prolonged battle allowed the Soviets to bring in reinforcements.
In the opening phase of ATL Barbarossa, it would 1 to 1, with local superiority for the attacker.
3.2 million vs 5 million is closer to 2:1 actually. And the Germans will start with local superiority... only to lose it as the month long grind means the Soviets have all the time they need to reinforce those sectors with reinforcements from the strategic reserve. Hey that sounds familiar...
Because the Germans are
ubermenschen who are unaffected by such things as exhaustion or logistical constraints or rapidly losing numerical superiority to find themselves facing 3:1 odds on their attack sectors.
The Germans have an additional year of preparation. The force in France would be decreased, logisitical constraints would be greatly improved (especially with a friendlier Balkans), and even raw material constraints are eased by an additional year of a war economy with Russian goods to boot.
All of this applies to IOTL 1941-1942. None of it helped.
Um, no, they still killed Russians at a better than a 1 to 1 ratio. Espeically the Romanians.
The Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians were quite incapable of holding any section of the front without major German assistance. The Germans can not afford to have large sections of their front collapse for Soviet forces to run through and wreck havoc in their rear areas.
A 1500KM border is impossible to defend.
Not when you know where and when the enemy is going to attack.
Take the
Battle of Brody for example. 750 German tanks faced 3,500 Russian tanks.
The Soviets had 3,500 tanks only on paper. In reality, 60% of those tanks were out of action because of mechanical failure. I see you go on to completely ignore the severe lack of crew training among the Soviets at that battle, another factor that will not apply ITTL 1942.
Many of the German tanks were Panzer Is and IIs, would have been phased out by 1942 and replaced with Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs.
And the Soviets would be fielding not just large numbers of T-34 Model 1941s and KV-1s, but also T-34Ms (which have all of the strengths of the T-34 Model 1941 with none of the weaknesses).
This pretty much proves to me that the Germans can and would defeat the Russians in 1942 in the open field.
Too bad that to begin with their not facing the Red Army in the open field, but in heavily entrenched defensive positions.
Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe the Germans pay a little bit as an intelligence maneuver, who knows.
Their going to have to pay a lot more then "a little bit" to satisfy Stalin.
Yes they were, the USSR got whipped due to inexperience and a lack of capable commanders. 12 months does not fix that, sorry.
Actually, it is. The
whole point of the reform program that was underway was to give the Red Army the equipment, skill set, and commanders to conduct a modern war. The German invasion actually set this back a year because it killed a whole lot of half-trained Soviet soldiers and officers forcing the Soviets to start over from scratch..
This is an accuracy screw up as bad as my Tunisia one. The Germans were not mass conscripting 14 year olds in 1942.
I was not referring to the period between 1941-1942. I was referring to the war as a whole. The Germans suffered ~7,956,000 irrecoverable losses between 1939 and 1945. Of those, 80% (6,364,800) were lost in the Eastern Front between 1941-1945. Soviet irrecoverable losses were in the range of 11 million (source: When Titans Clashed). So closer to 2:1 actually.
Further, no offense, but it is an insult to my intelligence for you to repeat this yarn. I have conclusively shown you that Axis population was roughly equivalent to the SOviet and that OTL, they conscripted nearly identical amounts of soldiers. If refuse to acknowledge the reality of demographics and actual numbers of conscripts in WW2, I cannot help you when you continue to invoke made up or irrelevant anecdotal evidence against it.
Because your numbers are bullshit. It is functionally 85 million people against ~180 million. The Germans were never able to recruit anything but a very small fraction of the military age manpower from the occupied countries. Most of the Hiwis came from Soviet prisoners of war, which requires huge hauls of prisoners of war which probably will not occur ITTL.
And the Germans conscripted similar numbers to the Soviets? 30 million is similar to 16-18 million (can't find my source on German conscription numbers at the moment, which was my main delay in getting this post up, but I recall it being something like this)?
What?
There are other members of the Axis Powers you know.
Their numbers are even more insignificant, the Soviets conscripted more people between 1941-1945 then the entire population of Romania, to say nothing of their quality. The only one who might add significant manpower numbers, Italy, has to devote the overwhelming bulk of it's forces first fighting and then guarding against the British.
Especially since the Germans won't help them fight. In fact I could see Mussolini removing the entire Italian contingent from Barbarossa, saying that he needs them against the British.
With what air cover? A couple German divisions of paratroopers would be sufficient to prevent a British-only invasion of the island.
Yeah, I was referring to Tripoli there. For a moment I was wondering if you thought I was referring to Sicily.
That is likely the next British target after they secure North Africa, in any case. Air cover can be provided out of North Africa and Malta as it was IOTL. And without the loss of soldiers to the German Afrika Corps, they will be able to bring in a much larger force to make up for the Americans not being there.