Germany

guy fawkes

Banned
If in 1940 Hitler opted not to pursue further expansion to the east, what may be altered in the way of defensive measures. Or what could have successfully seen Germany survive a hypothetical Russian invasion. This meaning what strategies or preparations could have been implemented
 

guy fawkes

Banned
Or in short; no Barbarossa?

Yes, there is no German invasion for whatever reason. I'm interested in what a defense strategy of German land holdings in the case the Russians invade might be, and if it would be successful
 
East Wall is Finished, and updated yearly as weapons increase in power.

Extra manpower to take after the resistance in France and Yugoslavia.

Extra Equipment and Men to NAfrica.
 
East Wall is Finished, and updated yearly as weapons increase in power.

Extra manpower to take after the resistance in France and Yugoslavia.

Extra Equipment and Men to NAfrica.

There will be a need to formalise the arrangements with the USSR soon enough, presumably on the lines that Molotov/Stalin were aiming for in late 1940.

A greater focus on fighting Britain would be the main thrust of German policy; to this end it may be that those who were trying to persuade Hitler to admit Vichy France to the Axis will get their way.

If the Germans are happy with relations with the USSR, then military/technological decisions will begin to be made with regard to a longer war with Britain. Presumably this means that the straategic bomber programme will receive a shot in the arm.

As Nazi Germany settles down for a long war the morotorium on research for projects of a longer term nature will be lifted. Jet aircraft and helicopters should begin to come online.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Of course, just because the Germans are happy doesn't mean the Soviets are. Stalin was paranoid, and he was building that gigantic army for a reason.

Although this change in German strategic reasoning would really have consequences earlier on (Hitler being willing to concede Bulgaria and Finland in order to bring Stalin to the Axis), if we work on the assumption that Barbarossa is just not launched for some reason, the Soviets are still building up an army suitable to deter the Germans.

By 1942, it would still be premature to attack Germany - but with Soviet troops poised just over Ploiesti and Germany's oil coming from there and Baku, and with Germany embroiled in a war with Britain and probably America, it would be mighty tempting. Eventually, at any rate, Stalin is going to dispense with his "ally" - barring Germany defeating Britain somehow, and I see no obvious way to go about that.

"More troops to North Africa", for instance. That doesn't change the capacity of the ports in Libya or the German landward infrastructure, so how can they be supplied? The Germans didn't have enough lorries to gert everything they could offload to their troops, so if they send more tanks, how do they intend to supply them, when the amount they can offload is itself finite? The whole North African enterprise was doomed to run up against British local supremacy because of our superior logistics.

(And of course losing the Med doesn't even lose Britain the war, since the convoys already went around the Cape.)
 

guy fawkes

Banned
Of course, just because the Germans are happy doesn't mean the Soviets are. Stalin was paranoid, and he was building that gigantic army for a reason.

Although this change in German strategic reasoning would really have consequences earlier on (Hitler being willing to concede Bulgaria and Finland in order to bring Stalin to the Axis), if we work on the assumption that Barbarossa is just not launched for some reason, the Soviets are still building up an army suitable to deter the Germans.

By 1942, it would still be premature to attack Germany - but with Soviet troops poised just over Ploiesti and Germany's oil coming from there and Baku, and with Germany embroiled in a war with Britain and probably America, it would be mighty tempting. Eventually, at any rate, Stalin is going to dispense with his "ally" - barring Germany defeating Britain somehow, and I see no obvious way to go about that.

"More troops to North Africa", for instance. That doesn't change the capacity of the ports in Libya or the German landward infrastructure, so how can they be supplied? The Germans didn't have enough lorries to gert everything they could offload to their troops, so if they send more tanks, how do they intend to supply them, when the amount they can offload is itself finite? The whole North African enterprise was doomed to run up against British local supremacy because of our superior logistics.

(And of course losing the Med doesn't even lose Britain the war, since the convoys already went around the Cape.)

Well, I have to ask whether or not Germany could expand upon their logistical infrastructure in North Africa. Landward infrastructure could be upgraded, as could the port facilities, right? Not to say this is really a significant theater of operations, it won't change anything for the Germans by pooling more resources into expelling the British from the Med. They could not hope to take the British mainland as attempting this would divert an enormous amount of resources away from the defense of the German-Soviet border areas, and even then, it is irresponsible to try this as
chances of success are so bleak

By what date would the Russians be in a position to defeat Germany, do you think?
 
Of course, just because the Germans are happy doesn't mean the Soviets are. Stalin was paranoid, and he was building that gigantic army for a reason.

Although this change in German strategic reasoning would really have consequences earlier on (Hitler being willing to concede Bulgaria and Finland in order to bring Stalin to the Axis), if we work on the assumption that Barbarossa is just not launched for some reason, the Soviets are still building up an army suitable to deter the Germans.

By 1942, it would still be premature to attack Germany - but with Soviet troops poised just over Ploiesti and Germany's oil coming from there and Baku, and with Germany embroiled in a war with Britain and probably America, it would be mighty tempting. Eventually, at any rate, Stalin is going to dispense with his "ally" - barring Germany defeating Britain somehow, and I see no obvious way to go about that.

"More troops to North Africa", for instance. That doesn't change the capacity of the ports in Libya or the German landward infrastructure, so how can they be supplied? The Germans didn't have enough lorries to gert everything they could offload to their troops, so if they send more tanks, how do they intend to supply them, when the amount they can offload is itself finite? The whole North African enterprise was doomed to run up against British local supremacy because of our superior logistics.

(And of course losing the Med doesn't even lose Britain the war, since the convoys already went around the Cape.)

This poster seems to forget that the 8th Army managed quite well when moving towards Tunesia in 42/43. So it is possible to supply a very large, motorized army in Libya. It just takes the will to do so and then commit the necessary resources.

Yes, port capacity limited the outright size of the Axis forces but to some extent, the British ports in Egypt did the same. Egypt was hardly a huge economic importer/exporter of heavy equipment. The British were equally handicapped and did build up port capacity and they also had the advantage of a rail line going west from Alexandria. This was steadily lengthened.

So a steady German strategy, with the understanding that logistics would play a major part in a Med strategy could just as easily have yielded strong results.
 
This poster seems to forget that the 8th Army managed quite well when moving towards Tunesia in 42/43. So it is possible to supply a very large, motorized army in Libya. It just takes the will to do so and then commit the necessary resources.

Control of both the seas and Egyptian port infrastructure is kinda handy, too.

Yes, port capacity limited the outright size of the Axis forces but to some extent, the British ports in Egypt did the same. Egypt was hardly a huge economic importer/exporter of heavy equipment. The British were equally handicapped and did build up port capacity and they also had the advantage of a rail line going west from Alexandria. This was steadily lengthened.

That Britain had superior logistics including the railway is precisely my point. Egypt was a bigger handler of shipping than Libya, and its easier to build up port infrastructure when you're already capable of keeping your armies on the landward side adequately supplied.

So a steady German strategy, with the understanding that logistics would play a major part in a Med strategy could just as easily have yielded strong results.

"Understandings" do not suddenly translate into capabilities. Can "understanding" alone expand the ports of Libya?

What in any case is a "strong result"? Basically, given that all the convoys already go round the Cape and the British ability to fall back indefinitely, it means further overstretch.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
This poster seems to forget that the 8th Army managed quite well when moving towards Tunesia in 42/43. So it is possible to supply a very large, motorized army in Libya. It just takes the will to do so and then commit the necessary resources.

Yes, port capacity limited the outright size of the Axis forces but to some extent, the British ports in Egypt did the same. Egypt was hardly a huge economic importer/exporter of heavy equipment. The British were equally handicapped and did build up port capacity and they also had the advantage of a rail line going west from Alexandria. This was steadily lengthened.

So a steady German strategy, with the understanding that logistics would play a major part in a Med strategy could just as easily have yielded strong results.

Sack Rommel, first thing. Otherwise no understanding of logistics will be had. Rommel's legend as a commander is strictly based on tactics (well and his believed opposition to Hitler): he was, even compared to Hannibal or Patton, a terrible strategist. In fact he wasn't a strategist at all, something his general attitude towards logistics shows.

And that still doesn't give you better facilities in Benghazi and Tripoli.
 

guy fawkes

Banned
First off, I have more respect for Rommel than Patton--who I don't particularly care for.

So, the last two posters in this thread do not believe that over time the Germans could establish the logistic base necessary to defeat the British in the Med? This seems a bit silly, if the British can do it, what is stopping the Germans? Granted though, it wouldn't be easy and would take time, but it could be done. To say otherwise is rubbish imo and a gross underestimation of the capabilities of Germany.

However, if by the time the logistical infrastructure required has been added the Americans have entered the war against Germany, that could seriously complicate things for Germany. Then, I would have to wonder if it would even be worth pursuing any more gains down there. As I understand it, there wasn't anything of significant enough value to justify fighting the Americans down there.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The British and Americans were operating out of Egypt and Algeria, countries with at least 10 times the population of Lybia in 1940 (each), while Lybia has no city that even reaches the size of even Oran or Tanta, let alone Alexandria. It also needs these facilities pretty much from scratch. They're not going to magically turn Tripoli into a great military port in the middle of the war.

It would not only take time but it would take an entirely different attitude to the colonies in Italy and an entirely different front commander for the germans: Rommel may have been good at tactics, he still couldn't keep his forces fed and supplied even when he had the upper hand.
 
So, the last two posters in this thread do not believe that over time the Germans could establish the logistic base necessary to defeat the British in the Med? This seems a bit silly, if the British can do it, what is stopping the Germans?

That Britain is not Germany, and Egypt is not Libya?

It's that recurring fallacy of 50-50 chances: every factor that decided the war is assumed to be a nearly-even chance that came down for the allies. A lot of the factors were the ole' Grim Economic Realities. There were plenty of open chances, of course (that's the point of AH) and most of them came down for Axis, so there you are.

Granted though, it wouldn't be easy and would take time, but it could be done. To say otherwise is rubbish imo and a gross underestimation of the capabilities of Germany.

Underestimation? These guys sent an equipped armoured formation to a dusty desert and used it to cause serious concern for their enemies, quite apart from knocking out one of the world's main military powers in weeks, utterly mauling a massive army, and getting all the way to the outskirts of Russia's capitals and the Volga. Who'd have believed that if you'd told them in 1939?

But the fact is, the Germans did an incredible (and I do mean in the proper sense of the word: impossible to credit were it not true) amount with an economy which was still something like 25% agrarian and an army that was in large part horse-drawn already. They got far further than anyone would have expected. And they were pretty damn lucky all the way.

Why, therefore, must we assume that it's "underestimation" to question whether they could go even further?

Nobody's presented any facts, it's all just "Germans can do it! They're Germans!" Facts are, Tripoli and Benghazi had very limited capacity. Rommel is fighting us up at the front. Rommel is guzzling parts, petrol, and ammunition. Parts, petrol, and ammunition must therefore constantly be offloaded to keep him fighting. You've already met the capacity of the ports to do that, but you don't have enough lorries to get them to him.

If you instead send lorries, and the considerable resources necessary to build expanded ports and railways, where's he getting his petrol? Monty's not just going to sit on his bum forever.

However, if by the time the logistical infrastructure required has been added the Americans have entered the war against Germany, that could seriously complicate things for Germany. Then, I would have to wonder if it would even be worth pursuing any more gains down there. As I understand it, there wasn't anything of significant enough value to justify fighting the Americans down there.

The PoD is apparently Barbarossa, so we can assume the Germans start committing all the resources they supposedly have to North Africa in June '41. That was when Rommel neatly parried our Battleaxe attack - and could advance no further thanks to his critical supply situation. Big surprise.

So, Rommel (or rather the supply-minded commander who has somehow taken over Rommel's command, as AG has pointed out more than once) can now make use of all these magical resources in the lull over the Autumn to build up his logistical infrastructure - and this is going to do him a fat lot of good when Crusader hits him between the eyes. I see no reason it should be any less succesful than OTL, since if anything building railways has reduced Germany's ability to actually re-enforce and resupply Rommel.

And by the end of Crusader, the Americans are in.

North Africa was always an ill-considered adventure for the Germans. They basically got dragged in to pull Mussolini's fat out of the fire, and stayed because they were hypnotised by the prospect of a canal that a) they were supremely unlikely to capture and b) wouldn't have done them much good if they had. They let themselves be steadily crushed between British local superiority on one hand and the overwhelming resources available to America on the other.
 

guy fawkes

Banned
I was suggesting, though, that if Hitler wanted to, he could have upgraded the ports, rail lines, roads, airfields, etc. I don't know, but I would venture to guess this would most certainly be a matter of years before this major construction project would reach completion. It would be a terribly expensive project and one in which there is very little to gain from it. Also, I doubt this project would ever get that far as you will have America coming into the war and probably Russia. So, that basically makes continuing that project rather foolish. The British could complicate matters too, yes, and they are in a far better starting position than the Germans. So, the Germans would have a lot of catching up to do, but there was nothing stopping them early on from greatly improving their supply situation, except that it would take a very long time.

So, there wasn't a chance in hell of Britain lifting the blockade, so Germany is in a very precarious situation if/when the Russians invade after extorting more territories from Germany. If the British do decide to lift it because Russia starts to make real progress, it will probably be to late. Maybe in this situation, Hitler has decided not to ally himself with Japan and adopted a policy of not antagonizing America. He just decides to wait out the British. Perhaps expand the air arm considerably in the meantime.

How do you think this would all play out if the Russians invaded (say in '43 or whenever)? What could the Germans have done if they hadn't launched the invasion?
 
Top