Does Barbarossa succeed if there are no western allies?

Deleted member 1487

Dude, you forgot a major thing. Frontage length. The reason Soviets and Americans were able to use their air superiority once they won it was due to having enough planes to cover the front.
Have you heard about the principle of concentration of force? Or Soviet loss rates, both non-combat and combat relative to the Luftwaffe?

The Luftwaffe, even an expanded one, simply does not have that capability.
It doesn't need to match them man for man given how much better they performed man for man.
See the charts below.

In the Second Battle of Kharkov, the Luftwaffle greatly contributed to the German counter attack, revealing armored columns, supplying as many as 30 pockets, but when they tried to bomb, they quickly found out that the "target rich environment" was so huge they were hardly able to make a dent with complete air superiority.
I'd do a lot more research on 2nd Kharkov if I were you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Kharkov#Luftwaffe
German close air support made its presence felt immediately on 15 May, forcing units such as the Soviet 38th Army onto the defensive. It ranged over the front, operating dangerously close to the changing frontline. Air interdiction and direct ground support damaged Soviet supply lines and rear areas, also inflicting large losses on their armored formations. General Franz Halder praised the air strikes as being primarily responsible for breaking the Soviet offensive.[30] The Soviet air force could do very little to stop Pflugbeil's 4th Air Corps.[38] It not only attacked the enemy but also carried out vital supply missions. Bombers dropped supplies to encircled German units, which could continue to hold out until a counter-offensive relieved them.[38] The 4th Air Corps anti-aircraft units also used their high-velocity 8.8 cm guns on the Soviet ground forces.[39] Over the course of the 16-day battle the 4th Air Corps played a major role in the German victory, conducting 15,648 sorties (978 per day), dropping 7,700 tonnes of bombs on the Soviet forces and lifting 1,545 tonnes of material to the front.[40]

On 14 May, the Germans continued to attack Soviet positions in the north in localized offensives and by then, the Luftwaffe had gained air superiority over the Kharkov sector, forcing Timoshenko to move his own air assets forward to counter the bolstered Luftflotte 4. The Luftwaffe won air superiority over their numerically superior, but technically inferior opponents.[41] The air battles depleted the Soviet fighter strength, allowing the German strike aircraft the chance to influence the land battle even more.[42] Nonetheless, the Soviet forces pushed on, disengaging from several minor battles and changing the direction of their thrusts. However, in the face of continued resistance and local counterattacks, the Soviet attack ebbed, especially when combined with the invariably heavy air raids. By the end of the day, the 28th Army could no longer conduct offensive operations against German positions.[34]

On 17 May, supported by Fliegerkorps VI, the German army took the initiative, as Kleist's 3rd Panzer Corps[48] and 44th Army Corps began a counterattack on the Barvenkovo bridgehead from the area of Aleksandrovka in the south. Aided greatly by air support, Kleist was able to crush Soviet positions and advanced up to ten kilometres in the first day of the attack. Soviet troop and supply convoys were easy targets for ferocious Luftwaffe attacks, possessing few anti-aircraft guns and having left their rail-heads 100 kilometers to the rear.[49] German reconnaissance aircraft monitored enemy movements, directed attack aircraft to Soviet positions and corrected German artillery fire.[49] 4th Air Corps response time to calls for air strikes was excellent, only 20 minutes.[49]

The consequences of losing the air battle were also apparent. On 18 May the Fliegerkorps VI destroyed 130 tanks and 500 motor vehicles, while adding another 29 tanks destroyed on 19 May.[52]

The Luftwaffe also intensified operations over the Donets River to prevent Soviet forces escaping. Ju 87s from StG 77 destroyed five of the main bridges and damaged four more while Ju 88 bombers from Kampfgeschwader 3 (KG 3) inflicted heavy losses on retreating motorised and armoured columns.[52]

In broad daylight, the Luftwaffe, now enjoying complete air supremacy and absence of Soviet anti-aircraft guns, rained down SD2 anti-personnel cluster bombs on the exposed Soviet infantry masses, killing them in droves.[54]

By 26 May, the surviving Red Army soldiers were forced into crowded positions in an area of roughly fifteen square kilometers. Soviet attempts to break through the German encirclement in the east were continuously blocked by tenacious defensive manoeuvres and German air power. Groups of Soviet tanks and infantry that attempted to escape and succeeded in breaking through German lines were caught and destroyed by Ju 87s from StG 77.[11]

More than 200,000 Soviet troops, hundreds of tanks and thousands of trucks and horse-drawn wagons filled the narrow dirt roadbetween Krutoiarka and Fedorovka and were under constant German artillery fire and relentless air strikes from Ju 87s, Ju 88s and He 111s. SD-2 cluster munitions killed the unprotected infantry and SC250 bombs smashed up the Soviet vehicles and T-34 tanks. Destroyed vehicles and thousands of dead and dying Red Army soldiers choked up the road and the nearby ravines. General Bobkin was killed by German machine gun fire and two more Soviet generals were killed in action on the 26th and 27th. Bock personally viewed the carnage from a hill near Lozovenka.[55]

Hayward gives 75,000 Soviets killed and 239,000 taken prisoner.[53] Beevor puts Soviet losses in terms of prisoners as 240,000[10] (with the bulk of their armour), while Glantz—citing Krivosheev—gives a total of 277,190 overall Soviet casualties.[4][9] Both tend to agree on a low German casualty count, with the most formative rounding being at 20,000 dead, wounded and missing.[8][9][10] Regardless of the casualties, Kharkov was a major Soviet setback; it put an end to the successes of the Red Army during the winter counteroffensive.

Sure an expanded one could make a larger tactical bombing, but they basically grabbed almost every tactical bomber (and plenty of other aircraft) from the East front just for this one battle.
No, they took units already assigned to AG-South and operating in the region:
Luftwaffe
Hitler immediately turned to the Luftwaffe to help blunt the offensive. At this point, its close support corps was deployed in the Crimea, taking part in the siege of Sevastopol. 8th Air Corps under the command of Wolfram von Richthofen was initially ordered to deploy to Kharkov from the Crimea, but the command was rescinded. In an unusual move, Hitler kept it in the Crimea, but did not put the corps under the command of Luftflotte 4 (Air Fleet 4), which already contained 4th Air Corps, under the command of General Kurt Pflugbeil, and Fliegerführer Süd (Flying Command South), a small anti-shipping command based in the Crimea. Instead, he allowed Richthofen to take charge of all operations over Sevastopol. The siege in the Crimea was not over, and the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula had not yet been won. Still, Hitler was pleased with the progress there and content to keep Richthofen where he was and withdraw air support from Fliegerkorps VIII in order to prevent a Soviet breakthrough at Kharkov.

By 15 May, Pflugbeil was reinforced and received Kampfgeschwader 27 (Bomber Wing 27, or KG 27), Kampfgeschwader 51 (KG 51), Kampfgeschwader 55 (KG 55) and Kampfgeschwader 76 (KG 76) equipped with Junkers Ju 88 and Heinkel He 111 bombers. Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 (Dive Bomber Wing 77, or StG 77) also arrived to add direct ground support.[37] Pflugbeil now had 10 bomber, six fighter and four Junkers Ju 87 Stuka Gruppen (Groups)


Soviet internal equipment production would still be larger than the German counterparts. If you look at OTL and just assume anything within range of a Junker 88 is leveled, that still leaves them being able to outproduce Germany in terms of equipment tonnage, ammunition, turreted armoured fighting vehicles (AKA tanks, not TDs which find themselves in an awkward situation when the enemy isn't in front)… Don't get me wrong, the Soviets loved lend lease equipment. The Sherman was considered roomy, comfortable (something American tank crews disagree with) reliable, and accurate. While they were often one-shoted by German tanks, they found other issues more important than armor. But even their internal production far outpaces the German counterpart.

You're WAAAY overestimating the power of having quadruple the number of fighters and 900% more twin engine fighters, as well as the impact of a specialized air force for the Eastern Front could do.

None of these air war factors will be deceive post Uranus.
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/...LD_BROWER_CANBY_AIRPOWER_MANEUVER_WARFARE.PDF
An interesting statistic is that 11 percent of German counterattacks were in the battle for the first position, 58 percent for the second, and 30 percent for the third position. Thus, about 89 percent of the counterattacks had to be repelled beyond the limits of the first position, that is, where the enemy reserves were not dependably neutralized by fire during the period of artillery preparation . Ibid.
Per this Soviet CAS/battlefield interdiction/air cover by their air force was vital because without air support mobile units would be on their own against both the Luftwaffe AND nearly 90% of counterattacks. Which is why the chapter on the Soviet use of air power in WW2 emphasizes how vital air support was to Soviet advances of any distance. Having the Luftwaffe be able to strip the Soviets of fighter cover and shut down their ground support air arm would mean advances that petered out rapidly and shattered armor penetrations.
As we can see below a major increase in Luftwaffe strength in the East spells disaster for the Soviet air force and the Red Army's ability to conduct ground operations.
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/04/eastern-front-aircraft-strength-and.html
air losses.jpg

Luftwaffe strength in 1941-42 stays close to 3,000 but in 1943-44 it goes down to ~2,200. This decrease in size is due to the withdrawal of units to serve In the West against the Anglo-American bomber offensive. At the same time the Soviet air force manages to increase its strength by a huge factor.
The composition of the LW fleet also changes during the war. Early on the bombers make up a large part of the Eastern fleet but in 1943-45 their numbers are constantly decreasing while the ground attack aircraft make up the largest part of the overall force. Fighter strength also decreases each year.

For the Soviet force the huge numerical increase is concentrated on ground attack aircraft and fighters.
Regarding losses there is always a striking difference between the LW and the SU. The Soviet force always suffers more losses despite having a large numerical advantage in the period 1943-45. For both forces 1943 is the year of worst losses.

What is missing on the losses part is the losses per sortie statistic. Unfortunately I don’t have data for sorties in the East, with one exception. Historian Gröhler in "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg" gives for the Eastern front in 1944 0,00703 losses per sortie with the equivalent number in the West being 0.0537.
Usually a loss rate over 5% means an airforce cannot continue to operate efficiently. On the other hand a rate of ~1% in 1944 when the Soviet airforce had such a quantitative advantage is very low. It definitely doesn’t paint a very good picture of the Soviet pilots.

Finally a word should be said about aircraft types. In 1941 the Soviet force is operating obsolete types like the I-16 fighter. However by 1943 the new fighter models Yakovlev 1,7,9 and Lavochkin 5 are able to fight well against the German Bf-109 and Fw-190 at least at low altitude.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the air war in the East I can recommend the books of Christer Bergström.
 
IMHO yes. Germany not at war in 1940-41 is going to be very terrifying for the Soviets and Hitler isn't going to let them get away with anything. I don't think Hitler goes full architect, but likely might focus less on starting another war and trying to consider regime stability and establishing a new order in Europe.
This view ignores Hitler’s war goals as outline in Mein Kampf. If World War II starts, it’s a matter of when Hitler invades Russia, not if. Again, one of Hitler’s main war goals was Russia being Lebensraum for German people. He viewed Russia as an easy enemy and that once Russia is invaded, “the whole rotten structure will collapse”. It’s actually more likely that the Germans don’t invade France, because Germany will invade Russia 100% of the time so long as Hitler is in command of Nazi Germany.
 
The OP specified a "white peace" between the UK and Germany. To me that means a peace on equal terms - the Germans don't get to insist on the RN sailing to Riga, or hold on to British POWs, or anything like that. They can screw over France all they want, but Britain is getting out of the war without conditions.
Yeah, basically I just meant Britain no longer fights with Germany and lets Germany do what it wants, but Britain doesn’t have to give up territory or anything.
 

Deleted member 1487

This view ignores Hitler’s war goals as outline in Mein Kampf. If World War II starts, it’s a matter of when Hitler invades Russia, not if. Again, one of Hitler’s main war goals was Russia being Lebensraum for German people. He viewed Russia as an easy enemy and that once Russia is invaded, “the whole rotten structure will collapse”. It’s actually more likely that the Germans don’t invade France, because Germany will invade Russia 100% of the time so long as Hitler is in command of Nazi Germany.
And your point ignores that Mein Kampf was written 15 years before when he was in Landsberg prison. Hitler evolved in his thinking over the 1920s and 30s and was actually considering allying with Stalin until some things came up that convinced him invading was the best (or least bad) option. Though often portrayed as a static cartoonish villain Hitler wasn't a complete idiot and he did evolve in his goals and thinking before settling on invasion of the USSR as the solution to the strategic problems of 1940. You're reducing a very complex issue to a overly simplified cartoon version of how the invasion of the USSR came about.
 
And your point ignores that Mein Kampf was written 15 years before when he was in Landsberg prison. Hitler evolved in his thinking over the 1920s and 30s and was actually considering allying with Stalin until some things came up that convinced him invading was the best (or least bad) option. Though often portrayed as a static cartoonish villain Hitler wasn't a complete idiot and he did evolve in his goals and thinking before settling on invasion of the USSR as the solution to the strategic problems of 1940. You're reducing a very complex issue to a overly simplified cartoon version of how the invasion of the USSR came about.
He did think that the invasion of Russia would be quick though, he said this prior to Barbarossa. He stated something along the lines of “the whole rotten structure will collapse” once Russia is invaded. Hitler in OTL was deluded to think that Russia would collapse in 6 months, this TL that wouldn’t change.
 

Deleted member 1487

He did think that the invasion of Russia would be quick though, he said this prior to Barbarossa. He stated something along the lines of “the whole rotten structure will collapse” once Russia is invaded. Hitler in OTL was deluded to think that Russia would collapse in 6 months, this TL that wouldn’t change.
He did say that and during planning made assumptions and ignored intel after he made the decision to invade. The question is ITTL whether or not butterflies would change his thought process given the end of hostilities in the west, the issue of gaining surprise for invasion, remobilizing Germany for war against the USSR from peace, dealing with the aftermath of conquering Europe and reorganizing it for a long term stable economic situation rather than the OTL war economy, etc. A victorious Germany in 1940 has a lot of stuff to deal with that it didn't IOTL; a significant part of the reason for invading the USSR wasn't simply assumed ease, but specifically as a solution to the intractable issue of how to deal with Britain staying in the war and fighting off the invasion/peace offensive attempt in August-October 1940. The invasion was supposed to be quick to secure resources for a long war with Britain and potentially the US, as well as head off the what to Hitler was rising Soviet threat (they were expanding and modernizing their army and violating their border agreements in 1940) to ensure a one front war going forward as well present the British with fiat accompli by removing the last major power on the continent that they could hope to pull into the conflict. So without the invasion of the USSR being a solution to the problem of not being able to knock Britain out of the war one of the major reasons for invasion is going to be gone. Plus Stalin is likely going to be much more cautious about dealing with Germany after the Brits leave the war soon after the French and certainly won't be playing hard ball over their late summer 1940 negotiation efforts that enraged Hitler and convinced him of Stalin's untrustworthiness.

Maybe Hitler would still invade because of his long term hatred of Communism and the USSR, perhaps not given the missing reasons that existed IOTL. All I'm arguing is that it's not a guarantee that there would be invasion no matter what.
 
He did say that and during planning made assumptions and ignored intel after he made the decision to invade. The question is ITTL whether or not butterflies would change his thought process given the end of hostilities in the west, the issue of gaining surprise for invasion, remobilizing Germany for war against the USSR from peace, dealing with the aftermath of conquering Europe and reorganizing it for a long term stable economic situation rather than the OTL war economy, etc. A victorious Germany in 1940 has a lot of stuff to deal with that it didn't IOTL; a significant part of the reason for invading the USSR wasn't simply assumed ease, but specifically as a solution to the intractable issue of how to deal with Britain staying in the war and fighting off the invasion/peace offensive attempt in August-October 1940. The invasion was supposed to be quick to secure resources for a long war with Britain and potentially the US, as well as head off the what to Hitler was rising Soviet threat (they were expanding and modernizing their army and violating their border agreements in 1940) to ensure a one front war going forward as well present the British with fiat accompli by removing the last major power on the continent that they could hope to pull into the conflict. So without the invasion of the USSR being a solution to the problem of not being able to knock Britain out of the war one of the major reasons for invasion is going to be gone. Plus Stalin is likely going to be much more cautious about dealing with Germany after the Brits leave the war soon after the French and certainly won't be playing hard ball over their late summer 1940 negotiation efforts that enraged Hitler and convinced him of Stalin's untrustworthiness.

Maybe Hitler would still invade because of his long term hatred of Communism and the USSR, perhaps not given the missing reasons that existed IOTL. All I'm arguing is that it's not a guarantee that there would be invasion no matter what.
It’s still a really difficult scenario to achieve. Hitler’s Germany was literally founded on anti-communism. The Axis Powers were formed as an alliance against communism. Again, Hitler would still be so delusional so as to think that Russia would be quickly knocked out, even more so now since the British are out of the picture. It would make far more sense to just quickly knock the Soviet Union out (in Hitler’s eyes) and achieve complete and total domination over all of Europe with your fantasy of Eastern European living space for Germans being fulfilled. It’s simply too tempting for Germany, it’s the last place they can really expand. Add on to the fact that Stalin will be very aware of the dangers of Germany now that the British are out, and if Hitler never invades (again, extremely unlikely), then what’s to stop Stalin from invading first? Stalin would be well aware of threat Nazi Germany presents and there is no way in a million years that Stalin would accept an enemy even more dangerous then the Western allies directly on the Soviet border. Even if no war occurs between Germany and Russia, the tensions which would result between the two countries would make the Cold War look non-tension-filled by comparison, which would eventually lead to a war anyway. Add on to the fact that it would be political suicide for Hitler’s anti-communist Germany to ally itself with the largest Communist state in the world, and the scenario of no war just between the two countries just becomes too difficult to achieve, especially with leaders such as Hitler and Stalin in power.
 
I've seen one estimate that the Germans could have doubled their artillery park without having to defend against the strategic air war and that was without even factoring in the economic limitations caused by the Wallied blockade of Europe.
How large would their artillery park (in thousands) be without the air war?
 

Deleted member 1487

How large would their artillery park (in thousands) be without the air war?
Not sure off hand, it would depend on which point in the war and how much of it would be 88s for dual AT/AAA work. Without the need for the heavy stuff they'd also have the ability to make 105s/150s (and bigger) for heavy artillery.
 
Did nobody like my idea of a further developed/utilized German airborne divisions due to either an avoided Crete or more successful Crete? That they could be used in Russia.
 
Airborne units could be used to seize key bridges and the like.

They were used to great effectiveness in such operations in the initial blitz into the low countries. The book I read about them had them being used specifically to capture oil fields or processing centers in the Caucus region to prevent the soviets from destroying them. They character it follows ends up in Baku waiting for the main army to arrive. But could the use of airborne troops further panic and disorient Soviet forces as they find themselves caught from behind and a rapidly advancing front.
 
The Germans have both limited trained airborne forces and they don't want to lose transports more than necessary. Operations for the Fallschirmjager have to be carefully chosen, balancing the benefits against loss - IMHO key objectives yes, merely further disrupting a retreat probably not.
 
The Germans have both limited trained airborne forces and they don't want to lose transports more than necessary. Operations for the Fallschirmjager have to be carefully chosen, balancing the benefits against loss - IMHO key objectives yes, merely further disrupting a retreat probably not.

Sorry I meant that it would serve as just an added effect, in disrupting retreats. Securing bridges and potentially oil facilities in order to aid the advancing panzers would just aid in a potential soviet collapse.
 
Did nobody like my idea of a further developed/utilized German airborne divisions due to either an avoided Crete or more successful Crete? That they could be used in Russia.

Even if avoided the losses in Crete of about 6,000 paratroopers are hardly going to make much of a difference in the Eastern Front. Although the losses would be higher, I would say the best use for those paratroopers would be Malta.
 
Even if avoided the losses in Crete of about 6,000 paratroopers are hardly going to make much of a difference in the Eastern Front. Although the losses would be higher, I would say the best use for those paratroopers would be Malta.

You think so? It's a small target and doesn't allow for a lot of cover or time to organize before troops come to respond
 

thaddeus

Donor
Even if avoided the losses in Crete of about 6,000 paratroopers are hardly going to make much of a difference in the Eastern Front. Although the losses would be higher, I would say the best use for those paratroopers would be Malta.

my understanding this scenario UK is out of the war, and almost certainly no territorial loss?
 
In OTL Hitler instructed plans to be made for the attack on Russia in the summer of 1940. The impetus to finalise these plans were due the Russian 'demands' as a price for joining the Axis - not helped by having an RAF air raid at the time.
So, while ITTL we potentially have German forces 'stood-down' enjoying the peace dividend! This is likely IMHO not to last long, with Russia's appetite to emulate German success - with the need to do better than the embarrassment of the 'Winter War' debacle.
While Germany has established itself as 'top-dog' in Western Europe, and will have secured 'allies' in the Balkans - who have little scope for anti-German friends to give aid - we are back to the death race between them. Russia is the only power that can challenge the Germans, the US maybe - but that's sometime in the future, and besides the question on the lips of visiting US businessmen may well be 'when are you going to deal with the Communist Russians!?
However, there may need to be more subtle with their espionage by Luftwaffe overflights. OTOH they may request permission for long-distance training flights!!
 
The Germans don't capture plans for Operation Pike during the invasion of France. The Allies thus don't postpone their bombing of Soviet oil installations and we find the Allies fighting a separate war with the Soviets. With France down and the Soviets threatening the Middle East (to be fair, they likely bungle the invasion) the UK agrees to an armistice but Stalin remains distrustful, especially when warnings of German war plans are relayed. He keeps a sizeable force in the Caucasus against potential attack thus leaving Soviet forces thinner in parts and still distrusting the UK enough to not have their forces at combat readiness across from the Germans.

The UK may be unlikely to help the USSR (they were at war and Stalin's behavior has not changed following aggressive annexation and occupation) and there will be NO lend lease; initial supplies were diverted by the British to the Soviets from supplies they received by the Americans. With the UK at peace it's unlikely they receive lend lease themselves. They're likely thinking of the next war and are more than happy to watch the two powers bloody each other as they struggle to remain solvent.

With how bad the war is likely to go, the Americans aren't going to waste anything on what is perceived to be a lost cause, especially not to save Communism.

When the invasion kicks off, Stalin probably keeps needed forces wastefully tied down in the Caucasus fearing the British will stab him in the back and seize his oil supplies.

Best case, the Soviets turn it into a grinder surviving a stalemate that they likely take decades to recover from. Worst case, and most likely, the Soviets collapse by '43 into numerous states and Hitler gets his Russian ulcer.
 
Last edited:
Top