Yes, really. They would have half the number of Panzer divisions (and half the number of tanks to boot), less then half the number of trucks, fewer support weapons, the quality of their own personnel and organization would be lower... the list is literally endless.
Actually not really. They don't have half the number of panzer divisions they have as you claim. In the invasion of France, they had 2,445 tanks which would include hundreds of more Italian tanks as they don't go to North Africa in this alternate scenario, compared to 3,350 tanks in Barbarossa. So while having less would be true, it is not as low as the number you suggest it to be. They had 7,378 guns in the invasion of France while they had 7,200 guns in the invasion of Barbarossa. So they didn't have as much support weapons either. The invasion of France started with 3.3 million troops while Barbarossa involved 3.8 million troops, so while they have less troops this will be greatly offset by the much higher amount of logistics they will be able to focus, such as not having condors for merchant shipping and being able to fuel more planes for Barbarossa. The quality of their personnel would not that much of a difference, as they had recovered for eight months from the victory of the Polish campaign, while the Soviets were still yearning from the Winter war and had still not reformed their leadership command in May 1940. Organization would be better considering they didn't have troops stretched across all of Europe and they have been able to improve their Siegfried line which would intimidate France even more and be able to focus their defenses would be of benefit to the Germans. Also my final point is that in the invasion of France they had 5,638 aircraft while in Barbarossa they had 2,770 aircraft. Considering they will have more bombers to disrupt infantry divisions and softening any defensive posts along with the hundreds other aircraft that will play a tactical role in reconnaissance. During Barbarossa, sometimes maps were not adequate to display the geography. This wasn't a strategic error but a series of tactical errors that may enabled them to have favorable battles. I would like for you elaborate on this endless list of issues they had before France.
ObssesedNuker said:
No, their shortage is vastly greater, as they don't have the huge masses of trucks they stripped out of Western Europe. The looting of France far outstripped the expenditures of all of those campaigns put together. Without it, the non-Panzer components of the Heer would have been completely demotorized and motorizing the non-divisional logistics, which was vital for sustaining the army away from their railheads, would have been impossible.
Hitler should have negotiations with Italy to help produce trucks for Barbarossa, with trucks stationed in Italy and Libya and Ethiopia with no involvement for soldiers. Germany can also focus on producing trucks and have more aircraft focused on transport role besides the bomber and recon roles, so considering that it will be a short campaign with an unprepared, embarrassed enemy. The Germans will be fresh and not have any huge losses they sustained from France, the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.
So while they may have not as trucks as they would, they can have a higher emphasis on transport by ship and airplane and so this improve will their logistics better than before.
ObssesedNuker said:
Italy did not join the war until France was collapsing. It will be sitting out ITTL so whatever contribution they can make is irrellevant. You can also strike all the rest of the Axis minors, save for Slovakia, as they only wound-up hooking with the Germans because of the Fall of France.
Germany and Italy did have have been military allies since 1935. Also Mussolini himself wanted to avoid a war, so he can avoid any troops to be involved but he can supply the Germans. The Spanish sent soldiers of their own Blue Division, which numbered close to 50,000 troops, so why can't Italy focus on sending supplies for the Germans? I don't mind for the other axis states as they were mostly supplied with weapons by the Germans.
ObssesedNuker said:
Which is nothing new. The Soviets had been preparing for a war pretty much since it's foundation.
I am well aware of that, they had moved their factories to Urals in 1930's, but facing an enemy that is less prepared and not as competent will be less of a difficult task.
ObssesedNuker said:
None of which would bore fruit nor would have until 1942, had Barbarossa not occurred.
It did bear some fruit as they would have less resources to focus on destroying tanks and planes, will then be focused on having more to supply the Germans for any upcoming battles.
ObssesedNuker said:
Actually, its deployments in May 1940 are even better suited to stopping the German invasion then in June 1941 as the bulk of it's army is not piled up directly against the border but instead back along the Stalin line. At that distance, and given their vastly lowered resources, the German logistics tether would be stretched to snapping simply through the act of moving eastward.
If the Germans could stop the Maginot Line which had superior defenses and commanders compared the Stalin Line and it's militarily incompetent commanders, then there will not be any difference with the Stalin Line considering that it will consist of more obsolete fortifications and equipment which the Germans can encircle and destroy. The bulk of the armies defending against Germany will be hampered by the 200 plus bomber available and the higher amount of recon planes that the Germans will be to use to their advantage to plan for more efficient attacks against the Red Army.
ObssesedNuker said:
I don't know what bizzarro universe you are living in, but in 1940, as in 1941, the Soviet Union still disposed of the largest stock of tanks and aircraft in the world. In addition, without the redeployment towards 1941 frontier the Soviets would not have suffered the logistical dislocation they did OTL which badly compromised their ability to support their army along the frontier 1941 until they could rebuild the logistical net. The inadequate Soviet transportation infrastructure in this region worked both ways. That means not only do the Germans exhaust themselves just getting to the bulk of the Red Army over the horrendous roads and rails of eastern Poland/western Belarus with vastly fewer logistical, but they find a Red Army with even more operational tanks and planes then they had OTL.
The Soviet forces at the border OTL 1941 were at the end of an extremely tenuous logistics trail 800km long or more. They were in fact too far from their own logistic bases to be properly supported. This left them low on fuel and ammunition when the war began, with much of their equipment poorly maintained or inoperable. This was a significant factor in the Whermacht's easy destruction of so many Soviet armies. Forming the main defenses further east would considerably ease the strain on the rear services, and consequently would greatly increase the combat power of the supported formations, as well as allowing a larger number of them to fight effectively.
I guess the thousands of more number of tanks and planes don't seem to matter. The Germans will not have an issue with logistics as they will have higher numbers of planes and trucks to support them, considering supplies from Italy. Yes the Red Army may have more operational, but fewer tanks, in service. Meanwhile the Wehrmacht will have more operational bombers and recon planes to aid in this situation so there is a great benefit to the Germans.
ObssesedNuker said:
Fight it, sure. Win it? No. Do as well as they did OTL? No.
Considering that they were at the gates of Moscow in around five months, faced horrible rainfall which severely slowed their advance and winter which caused many horses to freeze to death and many vehicles and weapons inoperable, all while occupying France, Norway and facing battles against the British in North Africa all which took away soldiers, oil and steel for military vehicles that could have been used against Russia, than a quick victory in around four months with the capture of Moscow, would seem likely.