No/Delayed Barbarossa---Anything Changes In North Africa?

Drakker

Banned
If the Germans had not launched Barbarossa or delayed it until their next line of tanks came into service(while the Panther would not be the same, at the very least there would be Tigers) what would change with North Africa? How much further would the Germans get, seeing as they would have an extensive amount of men and material available that otherwise was preparing for Barbarossa? I know supply is an issue, but maybe with more Germans in North Africa there's more emphasis on solving this?
 
Why would they do this? The Germans thought their tanks were perfectly fine to fight the Soviets.

As for the other part the Germans don't have the capacity to supply that many more men. The ports simply weren't big enough, and it would take years to expand the ports.
 
Good luck convincing the communiphobe Hitler to not wage a war of extermination against the "untermenschen" with tons of resources and land and instead help Mussolini conquer the desert.
 
Until they launched Barbarossa, they had no idea that the Red Army even fielded KV's and T34's, so until then, they had no intention to replace their Panzer arm. Had they hypothetically launched Barbarossa with Panthers and Tigers, the Red Army would have had a year or two of extra time and would have been more prepared than OTL. It would be unlikely you see the successes of 1941 repeated in this AH attempt, unless Stalin does something stupid in the waiting period. (note that Tigers and Panthers were only deployed mid 1942 and 1943 respectively)

As for North Africa, Germany was outnumbered and did not have the same logistical supply capacitiy as the British. Without the US involvement and without Barbarossa, perhaps, Germany and Italy (insert joke) could do a back and forth attrition with the British on the Western Desert. If this AHC sees the US at war with Germany though, Operation Torch would still seal the fate of the North African campaign.
 
Last edited:
Why would they do this? The Germans thought their tanks were perfectly fine to fight the Soviets.

As for the other part the Germans don't have the capacity to supply that many more men. The ports simply weren't big enough, and it would take years to expand the ports.

To be specific, German Panzer division needs around 300 tons supplies a day to be fit for combat. Transporting 300 tons from Tripoli to, say Gazzala takes more than twice that amount (close to thrice). Basically, transport eats more supplies than it delivers(!). Tripoli, on a good day, is capable of unloading 70 to 80k tons of supplies per month. This is a losing math. Even if we add Benghazi (some 20k? IIRC) plus all the other ports (Tobruk, Bardia and Sollum) It still comes short of. Even with 1 ton in Tripoli = 2 tons in Benghazi and 3 in Tobruk.

Therefore not a lot changes. Even if Malta falls and the Med is totally closed, the British can still hold at Alamein for a very long period of time. And reinforce faster than the Axis can.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
What are the Axis paying the Soviets for this extra year? OTL they basically ran up a debt for almost an entire year getting resources from the USSR and not paying for them.
Are they selling the Buna rubber process to the Soviets? Stacks of machine tools?
 
What are the Axis paying the Soviets for this extra year? OTL they basically ran up a debt for almost an entire year getting resources from the USSR and not paying for them.
Are they selling the Buna rubber process to the Soviets? Stacks of machine tools?
Plus that extra year gives the Soviets time to build the Molotov Line and improve their armed forces. Neither of which is exactly a good thing for Hitler.
 
Top