Does Barbarossa succeed if there are no western allies?

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

b) OTL the Soviets made a number of bad decisions, here the Soviets may guess better German attack intentions (the Soviets did OTL 1941 about as bad as possible).

AIUI, the bad decision was essentially all Stalin's.

One factor in his decision actually made sense, and is gone here.

Stalin thought Britain was trying to play its traditional game against a Continental adversary: get a Continental ally to do the heavy lifting, support that ally as long was useful, and make a separate peace on the most advantageous terms for Britain.

This was the pattern of British strategy in the 18th century, and against Napoleon. OTL, Britain was heavily engaged with Germany and Italy, fighting numerous campaigns in the Balkans, North Africa, East Africa, and the Middle East, and losing several of them. Stalin concluded that Britain wanted to inveigle the USSR into war with Germany. He dismissed all British warnings as provocations. He feared that Soviet forces might get into an accidental exchange of gunfire, which, if Soviet forces were prepared for full combat action, could escalate into full-fledged battle.

Therefore all Soviet forces wee "stood down".

If Britain is out of the war, that doesn't apply.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Axis lost enough personnel that the even total Luftwaffe dominance wouldn't make a difference. So unless you have a reason besides "oh the air war"...

Once (if) Uranus succeeds, maybe they can just cannibalize their POWs?

Given how many Axis personnel weren't on the Eastern Front because of the Wallies losses even on the Stalingrad level could be compensated for. The Luftwaffe was actually a pretty critical part of the German formula for success in 1941-42 and even at their heavily diminished levels in 1943 inflicted huge losses on the Soviets; without the Wallies in 1941 and beyond the Luftwaffe is much stronger in the East and never leaves; as it was the Wallies claimed about 30,000 Axis aircraft destroyed during the war; even if exaggerated say 15,000 more Luftwaffe in the East during the war makes a vast difference given that even at their diminished levels they inflicted something like 3:1 aerial combat losses on the Soviets, who already lost insane amounts of aircraft during the war. Now they might not even have LL aircraft, which was about 15,000 high quality units. Afterall the Soviet ace of aces used a P-39...
Meanwhile with the Luftwaffe there in full strength the VVS doesn't get free reign and they where a vital component of Soviet success from 1943 and on, enabling and covering both breakthroughs and deception efforts as well as keeping the Luftwaffe off of their forces. Then there is the issue of the Germans not facing strategic bombing and keeping a vast amount of personnel and guns in the AAA role, plus electronic equipment, night fighters, 1/3rd their war time ammo production, etc. Without having to make Uboat from 1941-45 they can produce at least another 10,000 Panzers. Without the V-weapons program they can make a lot more whatever they want. Without even just one 1943 raid on the Messerschmitt works they save over 300 fighters destroyed in the factory, not even counting production losses from damage to the factory.

Are you really suggesting the Soviets would survive with cannabalism? There were stories that encircled Soviet troops resorted to that in certain circumstances and it didn't save them. Plus the guys captured at Stalingrad died off quickly for a reason, that reason being serious malnutrition and frostbite issues from the pocket situation in winter.

 

[thaddeus]

The Luftwaffe was actually a pretty critical part of the German formula for success in 1941-42 and even at their heavily diminished levels in 1943 inflicted huge losses on the Soviets; without the Wallies in 1941 and beyond the Luftwaffe is much stronger in the East and never leaves; as it was the Wallies claimed about 30,000 Axis aircraft destroyed during the war; even if exaggerated say 15,000 more Luftwaffe in the East during the war makes a vast difference given that even at their diminished levels they inflicted something like 3:1 aerial combat losses on the Soviets, who already lost insane amounts of aircraft during the war. Now they might not even have LL aircraft, which was about 15,000 high quality units. Afterall the Soviet ace of aces used a P-39...
Meanwhile with the Luftwaffe there in full strength the VVS doesn't get free reign and they where a vital component of Soviet success from 1943 and on, enabling and covering both breakthroughs and deception efforts as well as keeping the Luftwaffe off of their forces. Then there is the issue of the Germans not facing strategic bombing and keeping a vast amount of personnel and guns in the AAA role, plus electronic equipment, night fighters, 1/3rd their war time ammo production, etc.

historically they never recovered strength of JU-52 fleet, that would not be an issue here.

they also diverted into glider production of Gigant and converted many into powered aircraft, probably unlikely aircraft here.

so you might have (relatively) robust fleet of JU-252/352s (adding the latter because they might want to use wood) able to fly from Berlin to ... ?? ... Stalingrad? add a small number of BV-222s with their 10 tonne capacity, the transport fleet is completely different.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

historically they never recovered strength of JU-52 fleet, that would not be an issue here.

they also diverted into glider production of Gigant and converted many into powered aircraft, probably unlikely aircraft here.

so you might have (relatively) robust fleet of JU-252/352s (adding the latter because they might want to use wood) able to fly from Berlin to ... ?? ... Stalingrad? add a small number of BV-222s with their 10 tonne capacity, the transport fleet is completely different.

Sure, but that is probably the least of the changes that would happen without any other fronts.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I didn't do the math on the food thing. And I don't know where to look up the data, so I might be wrong about their ability to solve it by eating every enemy (and friendly) corpse. But once Uranus succeeds, the Soviets can win, air war or not.

http://critcom.councilforeuropeanst...ning-in-the-soviet-union-during-world-war-ii/
https://www.amazon.com/Bread-Affliction-Cambridge-Russian-Post-Soviet/dp/0521522838

 

[Catspoke]

The comments earlier about it being difficult for Hitler to restart the war due to the German population being unwilling and the fact their is no cover of a war with England to cover a build up is interesting.

The final peace between France/Britain/Italy/Germany also causes many questions.

Does Germany get her colonies back? (would South Africa really give up South West Africa?). It seems reoccupying these would keep the Germans busy for a while. (I can't imagine being a local in a Nazi African colony would be very nice). How much of France economy is harnessed toward reparations (Are French factories cranking our D520s, CharBs and trucks for Germany and her Allies?). Is Britain selling Bristol Beaufighters, those would be handy on the eastern front.

In a German dominated Europe she makes all the rules, Does Turkey allow free passage of the Italian navy into the Black Sea???

Does the German population really have a choice not to go along with a fresh war with the USSR?

 

[Mr.J]

The comments earlier about it being difficult for Hitler to restart the war due to the German population being unwilling and the fact their is no cover of a war with England to cover a build up is interesting.

The final peace between France/Britain/Italy/Germany also causes many questions.

Does Germany get her colonies back? (would South Africa really give up South West Africa?). It seems reoccupying these would keep the Germans busy for a while. (I can't imagine being a local in a Nazi African colony would be very nice). How much of France economy is harnessed toward reparations (Are French factories cranking our D520s, CharBs and trucks for Germany and her Allies?). Is Britain selling Bristol Beaufighters, those would be handy on the eastern front.

In a German dominated Europe she makes all the rules, Does Turkey allow free passage of the Italian navy into the Black Sea???

Does the German population really have a choice not to go along with a fresh war with the USSR?

IIRC Hitler wasn't really interested in African colonies as opposed to land in Europe. So probably as opposed to colonies they'd take money, equipment and Alsace-Lorraine.

 

[sloreck]

I am not sure but I think the rules of the Montreux convention would allow the RM to send ships up to a certain size through the Straits, although not submarines. As a non-littoral state there are some restrictions on the RM but as long as Turkey is neutral, they can send ships in to the Black Sea and even if they are limited to nothing bigger than heavy cruisers that outweighs anything the Soviets have.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Given how many Axis personnel weren't on the Eastern Front because of the Wallies losses even on the Stalingrad level could be compensated for. The Luftwaffe was actually a pretty critical part of the German formula for success in 1941-42 and even at their heavily diminished levels in 1943 inflicted huge losses on the Soviets; without the Wallies in 1941 and beyond the Luftwaffe is much stronger in the East and never leaves; as it was the Wallies claimed about 30,000 Axis aircraft destroyed during the war; even if exaggerated say 15,000 more Luftwaffe in the East during the war makes a vast difference given that even at their diminished levels they inflicted something like 3:1 aerial combat losses on the Soviets, who already lost insane amounts of aircraft during the war. Now they might not even have LL aircraft, which was about 15,000 high quality units. Afterall the Soviet ace of aces used a P-39...
Meanwhile with the Luftwaffe there in full strength the VVS doesn't get free reign and they where a vital component of Soviet success from 1943 and on, enabling and covering both breakthroughs and deception efforts as well as keeping the Luftwaffe off of their forces. Then there is the issue of the Germans not facing strategic bombing and keeping a vast amount of personnel and guns in the AAA role, plus electronic equipment, night fighters, 1/3rd their war time ammo production, etc. Without having to make Uboat from 1941-45 they can produce at least another 10,000 Panzers. Without the V-weapons program they can make a lot more whatever they want. Without even just one 1943 raid on the Messerschmitt works they save over 300 fighters destroyed in the factory, not even counting production losses from damage to the factory.

All of this helps but almost none of it is decisive. Air support just allows bombing and reconnaissance, not enough to win a war after losing a crap ton of personnel. You are waaaay overestimating the ability of an enlarged Luftwaffe to inflict damage in 1943. Even simple improvised machineguns shooting upward diminished low-altitude stuka strikes, leaving the Axis left to safer attacks, which means no "one bomb, one vehicle destroyed" result.

The diminished Luftwaffe was still part of the few successes the Germans had in 1943, but even a full strength one would not turn the tide.

This is just a speedbump in the face of a (maybe) larger foe.



Of course, the Soviets do need food for their own personnel, or they wouldn't be fielding a larger force. A POW would be worth seven man days of food. This means the corpses of the Germany 6th Army isn't actually enough to live on.

I guess it's a race between the Soviets trying to reach Romania and Poland where they can requisition food and their food situation. There is nothing the Germans (even with the sky) can do at this point to prevent Soviet advances as long as they haven't starved yet.

OK, the food might be a problem.

historically they never recovered strength of JU-52 fleet, that would not be an issue here.

they also diverted into glider production of Gigant and converted many into powered aircraft, probably unlikely aircraft here.

so you might have (relatively) robust fleet of JU-252/352s (adding the latter because they might want to use wood) able to fly from Berlin to ... ?? ... Stalingrad? add a small number of BV-222s with their 10 tonne capacity, the transport fleet is completely different.

Once the axis lose control of Tatsinskaya, they can no longer even escort their transport planes. Once that stage happened, the Soviet fighters averaged 3 kills per fighter per sortie. Of course, you might argue that with a robust fleet of JU-52s, the Germans might have succeeded in pushing the defenders out of Stalingrad and remove the Don bridgeheads by somehow speeding up their timetables. This allows Army Group South to dig in and prevent a Soviet counterattack. Sure, Hitler is not getting his oil (the Soviets would just sabotage the equipment and German Engineers said it would take 3 years to set up infrastructure to move and refine the oil anyways), but the Axis would be in a defensive position with good terrain, albiet a bit long front but with more personel than OTL to cover that extra frontage. If they have control of all that, about 25% of the agricultural output available to the Soviets in OTL 1943 would be in the hands of the Axis. They would be facing a famine not in 1944 but in 1943. And they were getting some food from neutral countries through the Volga path route as well as lend lease stuff.

 

[JamesBond88]

One thing that might happen that could explain both the PoD and a more plausible Barbarossa is a more diplomatically amenable Germany. If the UK sees Germany as a state they can negotiate with as opposed to a pariah that breaks every bargain they make then they might be willing to make peace. In addition, this alternative Germany might be willing to reach a negotiated settlement with the USSR, basically Brest-Litovsk 2.0. Of course this requires a completely different Germany and a Soviet leadership that's not going to want to fight on by any means necessary. So very unlikely, but it could be a good groundwork for the PoD occurring.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

All of this helps but almost none of it is decisive. Air support just allows bombing and reconnaissance, not enough to win a war after losing a crap ton of personnel. You are waaaay overestimating the ability of an enlarged Luftwaffe to inflict damage in 1943. Even simple improvised machineguns shooting upward diminished low-altitude stuka strikes, leaving the Axis left to safer attacks, which means no "one bomb, one vehicle destroyed" result.

The diminished Luftwaffe was still part of the few successes the Germans had in 1943, but even a full strength one would not turn the tide.

This is just a speedbump in the face of a (maybe) larger foe.

Just bombing and recon? That is huge and was a massive part of Soviet breakthrough ability. Now I don't know if we're saying the Soviets lack LL or the ability to Cash and Carry ITTL or if that would reach OTL amounts of supplies and equipment coming in (probably nothing from the British except via Canada and maybe Iran ITTL, certainly not via Murmansk for a variety of reasons), but they'd be in a tough spot without all that OTL stuff, especially trucks and electronics, which enabled Soviet rapid advance in 1943-45. Back to the Luftwaffe issue, it isn't just aircraft, though you're WAAAY underestimating 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, rather than one set up to fight three different types of air wars IOTL (low altitude, high altitude, and night strategic defense fighting against the Wallies with their superior electronic equipment). It is also that the Luftwaffe ran the AAA, which was 80% against the Wallies by 1943, and could have been used in the East, especially as it consumed 1/3rd of all German ammo production during the war (including small arms, naval use, artillery, bombs, etc.) 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.

Without having to put their best fighters in the west instead of using Stukas the Germans could use fighter-bombers with rockets, cluster bombs (SD-1, -2, -4, and -10) and probably napalm (they used something very similar in 1939-1941 and in the Spanish Civil War, but the fuel crunch stop it's usage). Having that would also free up He111s and Ju88s/188s/288s(?)/388s to bomb Soviet factories, which they largely stopped by the time Kursk happened due to pressing all level bombers into close air support, which got them killed and damaged very easily. Still the biggest problem for Luftwaffe bombers and CAS was Soviet fighters, which had largely free reign after Kursk due to the shift west of the vast majority of fighters and fighter pilots from then on. By 1944 there was virtually no ability to conduct aerial recon due to the Soviet fighter threat and lack of fighter escort for the Luftwaffe as they had pretty much been killed in 1943-44 in the West.

I'd suggest reading about the air attacks the Luftwaffe made during Kursk, which were extremely helpful for the Germans (contributing to their 3:1 casualty ratio in men and something like 8:1 in armor) and never again were able to be conducted like that due to the demands and losses in the West.

 

[merlin]

You are waaaay overestimating the ability of an enlarged Luftwaffe to inflict damage in 1943.

The diminished Luftwaffe was still part of the few successes the Germans had in 1943

1943! It would be all over by then! In OTL there is scope for the Axis to have done better e.g. versus Leningrad and indeed Moscow. In this situation, with a slightly earlier attack date taking Leningrad in July, seems plausible, there's no diversion before the attack on Moscow with Rommel allocated to AGS - Kiev is taken earlier, Stalin flees Moscow, panic in the streets, NKVD tries to keep order but as the sound of gunfire gets closer-----. Before the winter sets in the Germans have the Capital, the have winter quarters, they have Russian armament factories around the city. Early 1942 sees attacks to the south-east, Stalingrad is surrounded at first - cut off and the eastern shores of the Black sea, AGC goes further east to Kurbeshev (?), while AGN - takes Murmansk.
Organised resistance begins to crumble, Civil war breaks out between those who want to carry on, and those who want to negotiate.

they would need time to regroup, rebuild, even if politicians of every stripe wanted to supply (and side) with the Soviets?

Really, why? Would the Germans have been so stupid not to have built in safeguards so that this couldn't happen? Whether repatriating POWs in batches rather than all at once - reconstruction work to be done first, or requiring RN BBs to make 'goodwill' visits to German Naval Bases one after another? On one occasion it may be Bremen, then the next Danzig, and then Riga!!

How much of France economy is harnessed toward reparations (Are French factories cranking our D520s, CharBs and trucks for Germany and her Allies?). Is Britain selling Bristol Beaufighters, those would be handy on the eastern front.

While Germany may utilize France's production facilities, I can't see them use British aircraft - it's all in Imperial measurement not Metric.

 

[thaddeus]

Why wouldn't the UK send Lend-lease though? They've got a war industry built up and no war to use it in, a massive grudge against the Germans, and a centuries-old desire to not let one country (especially not an evil dictatorship) control all mainland Europe.

And what are the Germans going to do about it, restart the war in the West?

Because they have a more pro-German government in place, no Churchill, and King Edward - just as likely that the press etc. are vilifying the soviets rather than the Germans. Quite possible that war production has been cut, part of the 'deal' being a much lower % spent on Defence.

they would need time to regroup, rebuild, even if politicians of every stripe wanted to supply (and side) with the Soviets?

Really, why? Would the Germans have been so stupid not to have built in safeguards so that this couldn't happen? Whether repatriating POWs in batches rather than all at once - reconstruction work to be done first, or requiring RN BBs to make 'goodwill' visits to German Naval Bases one after another? On one occasion it may be Bremen, then the next Danzig, and then Riga!

don't dance on my toes @merlin was agreeing with you! lol

even if there was consensus in UK to influence German-Soviet confrontation, there would be a lag in its implementation? my understanding the initials shipments historically (and more so here) were critical.

and my view there would not be consensus to aid Soviets, even before, as you noted any safeguards the Germans built in. so Lend Lease, unless US immediately opens floodgates thru Pacific is moot point?

 

[Mr.J]

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.

 

[sloreck]

Unless a machine gun is on the appropriate mount you are not firing it at an attacking aircraft. Even so the reality is that, in spite of what you see in war movies a single machine gun is ineffective. The effectiveness of small arms against aircraft like in Vietnam was the result of a lot of weapons, and then absent a golden BB, it was effective only against helicopters close in to the ground. Absent things like aircraft from the USA and aviation gasoline the Soviets, who did very poorly against the Luftwaffe early on (yes I know a lot of aircraft were destroyed on the ground), are going to be even worse off against a much larger Luftwaffe with more experienced aircrew. True the Soviets are good at maskirova, however you can't hide a train moving between points A and B especially in Western Russia/Ukraine. If you look at how the Allied transportation campaign made life difficult for the Wehrmacht - the ability of the Allies to cripple the ability to move by rail for the Wehrmacht in France (where the system was much better) as well as hitting road traffic during the day was important to the success of D-Day. This was the culmination of a concerted campaign - which, given the increased strength of the Luftwaffe, the weakness of Soviet air defense made worse by more fighters, and the open terrain - the Luftwaffe can duplicate.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Afterall the Soviet ace of aces used a P-39...

The top Soviet aceS was Kozhedub, who flew La-5s.

However, Pokryshkin (#2) got 47 of his 62 kills, and #3 Rechkalov had 44 of 56 in P-39s.

 

[General Tirpitz]

Could we also see a Japanese Invasion of the Soviet Union in order to assist Germany?

Japan would join Barbarossa only if the USSR seemed to be on the verge of collapse. The Battle of Nomonhan had soured the IJA's enthusiasm towards the war against the USSR. In addition, the army did not believe it could fight against the Soviets while the war in China was still going on. The reason it was ready to support the Pacific War was due to its being seen crucial to war efforts in China and more as the navy's responsibility. It should be also pointed out that the way how Germany started its Eastern Campaign without informing Japan first had also angered some Japanese.

Too late as Japan already decided to attack South, there is little in Siberia Japan needs.

Japan had not made a decision to attack yet, negotiations with the US were still a priority in spring 1941. It had however started preparations in the case those talks failed. It's not clear though that we even would have those talks ITTL as the political situation in Southeast Asia would be rather different, as some in this thread have already noted.

True, there is nothing in Siberia/Eastern Russia that the Japanese need (that anyone knows about) other than timber and some odds and ends. It also removes any direct connection between the USSR and Japan, which is seen as hurting the domestic communists (as few as there are).

This is a good point. The removal of Communist threat was one of the justifications for the war against China after-all.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The top Soviet aceS was Kozhedub, who flew La-5s.

However, Pokryshkin (#2) got 47 of his 62 kills, and #3 Rechkalov had 44 of 56 in P-39s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_the_Soviet_Union
Pokryshkin is listed as number 1 here with 65 kills due to group victories. So 2 of 3 of the top Soviet aces relied on the P-39. That doesn't mean they couldn't perform without the foreign models, but perhaps not nearly as well. Still it was pretty useful for the Soviets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra#Soviet_Union

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Just bombing and recon? That is huge and was a massive part of Soviet breakthrough ability. Now I don't know if we're saying the Soviets lack LL or the ability to Cash and Carry ITTL or if that would reach OTL amounts of supplies and equipment coming in (probably nothing from the British except via Canada and maybe Iran ITTL, certainly not via Murmansk for a variety of reasons), but they'd be in a tough spot without all that OTL stuff, especially trucks and electronics, which enabled Soviet rapid advance in 1943-45. Back to the Luftwaffe issue, it isn't just aircraft, though you're WAAAY underestimating 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, rather than one set up to fight three different types of air wars IOTL (low altitude, high altitude, and night strategic defense fighting against the Wallies with their superior electronic equipment). It is also that the Luftwaffe ran the AAA, which was 80% against the Wallies by 1943, and could have been used in the East, especially as it consumed 1/3rd of all German ammo production during the war (including small arms, naval use, artillery, bombs, etc.) 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.

Without having to put their best fighters in the west instead of using Stukas the Germans could use fighter-bombers with rockets, cluster bombs (SD-1, -2, -4, and -10) and probably napalm (they used something very similar in 1939-1941 and in the Spanish Civil War, but the fuel crunch stop it's usage). Having that would also free up He111s and Ju88s/188s/288s(?)/388s to bomb Soviet factories, which they largely stopped by the time Kursk happened due to pressing all level bombers into close air support, which got them killed and damaged very easily. Still the biggest problem for Luftwaffe bombers and CAS was Soviet fighters, which had largely free reign after Kursk due to the shift west of the vast majority of fighters and fighter pilots from then on. By 1944 there was virtually no ability to conduct aerial recon due to the Soviet fighter threat and lack of fighter escort for the Luftwaffe as they had pretty much been killed in 1943-44 in the West.

I'd suggest reading about the air attacks the Luftwaffe made during Kursk, which were extremely helpful for the Germans (contributing to their 3:1 casualty ratio in men and something like 8:1 in armor) and never again were able to be conducted like that due to the demands and losses in the West.

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.

The Luftwaffe, even an expanded one, simply does not have that capability.

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. 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.

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.

So if Uranus succeeds the question for the Soviets is "can we overrun the Germans on the ground before we run out of food?"

Maybe not? Sources on food situation differ, but even the best estimates don't seem to get them to the 1944 harvest and I'm starting to doubt cannibalism alone can make up the difference with OTL food consumption. Maybe if they just reduce headcount a bit and then cannibalize a bit more?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

1943! It would be all over by then! In OTL there is scope for the Axis to have done better e.g. versus Leningrad and indeed Moscow. In this situation, with a slightly earlier attack date taking Leningrad in July, seems plausible, there's no diversion before the attack on Moscow with Rommel allocated to AGS - Kiev is taken earlier, Stalin flees Moscow, panic in the streets, NKVD tries to keep order but as the sound of gunfire gets closer-----. Before the winter sets in the Germans have the Capital, the have winter quarters, they have Russian armament factories around the city. Early 1942 sees attacks to the south-east, Stalingrad is surrounded at first - cut off and the eastern shores of the Black sea, AGC goes further east to Kurbeshev (?), while AGN - takes Murmansk.

Eh, if that happens, then yeah the Germans win. I don't really think their 1941 Moscow offensive really would have worked as the railroads and bridges were bottlenecked in OTL, so throwing extra manpower wouldn't be able to get to the front, unless they walked or use horses (not enough half tracks and most of the "extra" ones are Sd.Kfz. 7s). YYMV on if they would bother going on foot to get to the front. Then again, before capturing all the trucks at Dunkirk, the Germans were doing a lot of walking in the war...