Barbarossa without Mediterranean Front

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

hipper

Banned
what is the consensus if Italy had not invaded Egypt? would the reverse have occurred or Libya considered better/more easily defended and not worth effort vs. Italian East Africa?

if Italians had done what was in their control and relocated some or most of naval forces back to Med from East Africa, called their merchant marine ships back (?), and stockpiled "a years' worth" of supplies in Libya (as was envisioned) while NOT attacking Egypt.

even if Balkans campaign occurs pretty much as it historically did would there need to be a DAK?

Would there be a point in declairing war?
 
what is the consensus if Italy had not invaded Egypt? would the reverse have occurred or Libya considered better/more easily defended and not worth effort vs. Italian East Africa?

if Italians had done what was in their control and relocated some or most of naval forces back to Med from East Africa, called their merchant marine ships back (?), and stockpiled "a years' worth" of supplies in Libya (as was envisioned) while NOT attacking Egypt.

even if Balkans campaign occurs pretty much as it historically did would there need to be a DAK?

Would there be a point in declairing war?

their territorial aims were at least initially directed at France weren't they? Corsica, Nice, Tunisa ...et al
 

Deleted member 1487

their territorial aims were at least initially directed at France weren't they? Corsica, Nice, Tunisa ...et al
Initially because France was about to fall and it was an easy pickup, but thinking that Britain was about to fall too, though later, they went for pick ups there as well (plus of course Greece, because why not, right?).
 

hipper

Banned
their territorial aims were at least initially directed at France weren't they? Corsica, Nice, Tunisa ...et al

I think Mussolini was more ambitious than that, he wanted an African empire. A less ambitious Mussolini has bigger butterflies.
 
their territorial aims were at least initially directed at France weren't they? Corsica, Nice, Tunisa ...et al

Initially because France was about to fall and it was an easy pickup, but thinking that Britain was about to fall too, though later, they went for pick ups there as well (plus of course Greece, because why not, right?).

I think Mussolini was more ambitious than that, he wanted an African empire. A less ambitious Mussolini has bigger butterflies.

was answering question "why declare war?" and was pointing out that Italy (Mussolini) DID have goals outside of the immediate invasion of Egypt. of course this is under POD of Italy performing better, my scenario one at a time and invade Greece not both Greece and Egypt.
 

Deleted member 1487

was answering question "why declare war?" and was pointing out that Italy (Mussolini) DID have goals outside of the immediate invasion of Egypt. of course this is under POD of Italy performing better, my scenario one at a time and invade Greece not both Greece and Egypt.
The point was that Mussolini misunderstood the situation and figured the war was about to end, so he better have all his fingers and toes in as many pies as possible to get a piece of each of them at the negotiations. So to change that you'd need to change Mussolini's understanding of the war...which could well change his willingness to enter it at all.
 
The point was that Mussolini misunderstood the situation and figured the war was about to end, so he better have all his fingers and toes in as many pies as possible to get a piece of each of them at the negotiations. So to change that you'd need to change Mussolini's understanding of the war...which could well change his willingness to enter it at all.

agree with all that ... but to play along with premise of Italy performing better and no Med Front (at least for Germany) ... the only realistic scenario I could imagine is that they fortify themselves in Libya (with exception of capturing Halfaya Pass as you pointed out)
 
Last edited:
What sort of forces do you see them having? I think 5th Mountain is nearly a given, which pushes them up to 8 German divisions. I see the 164th division spent time in Greece in 1941-42, so probably would have been with 12th army, pushing them up to 9 German divisions. There was later 713rd static division in Greece in June, not sure if that would be used for Barbarossa beyond some occupation/security duties.

A quick count of divisions that might become available would be

2nd, 5th and 15th Panzer Division, 5th leichte Division (mot)
5th and 6th Gebirgs Division
164th Infantry Division
7th Flieger Division

You also have the following divisions that hadn't recovered from the Balkans campaign by the start of the campaign, and thus didn't enter combat until about the second half of July.

60th Infantry Division (mot)
46th, 73rd, 183rd and 194th Infantry Division

Thats a total of 12 divisions. You might add one or two static divisions and a host of other minor units as well to complement this force.

So yes, 12th army would need no help...once actually used. The problem seems to be Hitler's conceptions of the offensive, which were not influenced by the Greek/Mediterranean situation.

Then one would need to examine how determined Hitler was in his opposition to this endeavour.

One might say that the original plan was quite risky - splitting the panzer group in two, and hoping both be strong enough to link up.
Adding the DAK and associated air units to the southern pincer would greatly improve the prospects of success.

And might be enough to change Hitlers mind. Or Halders - iirc he was also sceptical of the original plan.
But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not at home at the moment, so I don't have all my sources available, and can't look into it at the moment.
 

Deleted member 1487

A quick count of divisions that might become available would be

2nd, 5th and 15th Panzer Division, 5th leichte Division (mot)
5th and 6th Gebirgs Division
164th Infantry Division
7th Flieger Division

You also have the following divisions that hadn't recovered from the Balkans campaign by the start of the campaign, and thus didn't enter combat until about the second half of July.

60th Infantry Division (mot)
46th, 73rd, 183rd and 194th Infantry Division

Thats a total of 12 divisions. You might add one or two static divisions and a host of other minor units as well to complement this force.
.
Thank you for the list. We should note too many of the divisions that did enter combat on June 22nd (and Luftwaffe units) were still not recovered from the Balkan operations.
In terms of the above list I've put 5th Mountain and the 164th division with 12th Army and 6th Mountain in Finland due to it ending up there historically. 15th Panzer and 5th Light/21st Panzer (I think they'd have upgraded to a full division without having been deployed to Africa) I think would probably go to the panzer poor AG-North. I could see 2nd and 5th Panzer going with AG-South (1st Panzer Army) or one of the AG-Center Panzer Groups, what do you think?
7th Flieger I put with AG-North because they probably would want help securing the Dvina due to fears of it being a defense line for the Soviets...bad memories of WW1 apparently based on the memoirs I've read.

Not sure about the late comers, where were they committed IOTL?

Then one would need to examine how determined Hitler was in his opposition to this endeavour.

One might say that the original plan was quite risky - splitting the panzer group in two, and hoping both be strong enough to link up.
Adding the DAK and associated air units to the southern pincer would greatly improve the prospects of success.

And might be enough to change Hitlers mind. Or Halders - iirc he was also sceptical of the original plan.
But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not at home at the moment, so I don't have all my sources available, and can't look into it at the moment.
Hitler set the strategy and based on the monograph no one opposed the change. The concept is that no matter the strength of the attacker, a major river obstacle would take too long to force and the pincer couldn't work in that case. Again a faulty assumption as proved by history, but one that everyone was on board with at the time. DAK would probably go elsewhere, especially if 2nd and 5th panzer are available ITTL for AG-South.
AFAIK Halder's problems with the plan were entirely Moscow related, he thought it should be the primary objective, while Hitler did not want to play Napoleon; they put off the issue of long term major strategic objective until July and then fought once again, with Halder losing on the issue, which led to the Kiev-Leningrad diversions instead of charging east to Moscow after Smolensk.

Take your time to reply, especially if you don't all the info you'd prefer to make comments with.
 

Deleted member 1487

In terms of 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions, any idea of what they could do if added to 1st Panzer Group in Ukraine in 1941, corps-ed up with a completely formed 1st SS motorized infantry division?
 

Deleted member 1487

http://wwii-photos-maps.com/new_home_page_-_071216_006.htm
Going by this, it seems that another full corps for 1st Panzer Group could potentially result in a move to cut off the retreat of Soviet forces from the area of Lwow. 1st Panzer advanced deep into the Soviet rear, while 17th army on the southern flank was more limited in it's penetrations in the Lwow area, leaving the chance to slip forces in behind the Soviet retreating army in that area. So there could have been an early pocket further west with the necessary forces, while it doesn't disrupt the chance to from the Uman pocket, in fact might make it stronger.
 
Top