Request for a link to preexisting thread/s: Bagration

Hey, I am new here and have been thinking about AHCs that involve enabling the Nazis to defeat Bagration, or at least not be beaten so severely in it. Since I am quite positive this one has been done a dozen times already, instead of just doing yet another version of it I'd like for you old timers to link me to preexisting discussions of it. Thanks! :)
 
Germans to defeat Bagration? Without ASBness? Impossible. It is impossible for them to defeat the Soviets in Zitadelle and this is a year later with the Western Allies on the continent. I don't think it would be possible for Germans even if they transferred everything from France to East front. IMHO it is possible for them to lose less badly only if, somehow, Hitler is gotten rid of. His insisting on standing firm on every inch of the front is what really doomed Germans. With Hitler around, the Germans can only lose.
 
Germans to defeat Bagration? Without ASBness? Impossible. It is impossible for them to defeat the Soviets in Zitadelle and this is a year later with the Western Allies on the continent. I don't think it would be possible for Germans even if they transferred everything from France to East front. IMHO it is possible for them to lose less badly only if, somehow, Hitler is gotten rid of. His insisting on standing firm on every inch of the front is what really doomed Germans. With Hitler around, the Germans can only lose.

They could lose less badly if they properly identify Soviet intentions. Which would be hard since Soviets had several options, all of which would bring strategic advantage if successful and as such equaly possible. Germany didn't have enough reserves to cover everything and Soviets could strike where Germans were least prepared to defend.
 
Well, think about it. Only about 60% of the German land force and 20% or less of the Luftwaffe was opposing Bagration vs. 100% of the Soviet military. Yeah the Soviet military was much larger period but by any stretch that's not a fair fight. No, I don't think the Germans can just stop the Red Army dead in its tracks by mid-1944, but why is it ASB for them to make it every bit as costly for the Russians as it is for them?

The easiest way I can think of doing this is to either significantly postpone D-Day or have it attempted earlier and fail right away.

Zitadelle was a German offensive against well-prepared Russian lines. Bagration was the other way around, or should have been.
 
The easiest way I can think of doing this is to either significantly postpone D-Day or have it attempted earlier and fail right away.

Zitadelle was a German offensive against well-prepared Russian lines. Bagration was the other way around, or should have been.

There is no failing of D-day. D-day is an operation planned and conceived in such a way that outright failure (as in Allied forces thrown back into the sea) is beyond the capability of Germans.

There is no way the Germans could fortify the entire front. They could fortify one part, but then the other one would get attacked.

I was comparing the overall situation. The Zitadelle took place when the Germans were much stronger than in 1944. They couldn't defeat the Soviets then. Zitadelle was anticipated by the Soviets and Germans persisted in undertaking it despite ample signs that operation premise has been compromised to the point of making it impossible or irrelevant to the overall strategic situation in the war.
 
There is no failing of D-day. D-day is an operation planned and conceived in such a way that outright failure (as in Allied forces thrown back into the sea) is beyond the capability of Germans.
The Fall of France in OTL bordered on ASB. So, crazy things can happen. I agree that the Germans would not likely be able to push the Allies into the sea under any circumstances (too much air superiority among other things), but is a very nasty, freak, sudden Channel storm out of the pale? No.

But yes, the best way is to get D-Day significantly postponed in a very obvious way. (Of course that might butterfly away the Soviet offensive completely.)

There is no way the Germans could fortify the entire front. They could fortify one part, but then the other one would get attacked.
Well, certainly not when less than two-thirds of your army and less than a fifth of your airforce is on the front.

I was comparing the overall situation. The Zitadelle took place when the Germans were much stronger than in 1944. They couldn't defeat the Soviets then. Zitadelle was anticipated by the Soviets and Germans persisted in undertaking it despite ample signs that operation premise has been compromised to the point of making it impossible or irrelevant to the overall strategic situation in the war.
The Russians knew for months exactly when/where/how the Kursk spearhead was coming due to spies and were completely prepared for it. The Germans attacked head-on into the most fortified defenses they had seen thus far in the war. Bagration was the opposite of this, the Soviets attacking (what should have been) well-prepared Nazi defenses. Do keep in mind that Stalin only attacked when the Germans were tied down with two Western fronts, and had less than a fifth of their airforce to counter them.
 
Same problem, different area...

Like the Atlantic Wall, the Germans can either thinly guard everything, or fortify a few points. Same on the Eastern Front. The Red Army at this point can do a "Bagration" against AGN, AGS, or AGC, almost at the same time. Plus the Russians mastered deception, and I believe Kursk ruined the Heer armoured units. So less defeat would be Germans not attack Kursk, withdraw some, 1943 OTL till Bagration, Germans figure out where it is, and strip the rest of the front to defend there. Problem is, even if Germany inflicts 10-1 dead, Russia can take it. After all, Germany has to defend Italy, France, Hungary, and Poland, and stealing from Peter to pay Paul doesn't work when both are poor...
 
Bagration an its onset was a double bluff; convince the Germans that the main effort was in the Ukraine, then launch an offensive in Belorussia, to draw away German reserves, and then launch their REAL offensive in Ukraine and Poland with the goal of seizing bridgeheads over the Vistula. At the same time reserves would be drawn away from Romania and the Baltics to try and restore the situation, allowing further Soviet offensives there. Essentially a masterful execution of deep battle theory.

So let's say the Germans detect the Soviet buildup in Belorussia and match it with a buildup of reserves at the expense of forces in the Ukraine and Poland. Well then the Soviets shift the axis of advance, slam the Germans in the Ukraine, thus weakening the Germans in Belorussia and elsewhere for a followup offensive.

Basically the Soviet's understanding of military deception, rapid concentration of overwhelming force, and operational planning exceeded that of the Germans by 1944. Combine that with an overwhelming manpower and equipment advantage and there's very little the Germans can do.
 
one of the bigger items leading to bagration's success (although weight of numbers and greatly improved soviet operational command structure assured victory anyway) was the complete sucking of the LW out of Russia to defend Germany itself and to desperately try to shield the heer in france

AGC at the middle stages of bagration was only supported by 40 fighters which allowed soviet tactical aircraft to knock out german tanks and artillery positions in droves and keep the germans from assembling in any sort of large numbers to counter attack

some sort of pod that keeps the LW in russia would greatly help the germans... maybe after the high losses in 43 bomber command and the 8th air force are deprioritized or something like that
 
one of the bigger items leading to bagration's success (although weight of numbers and greatly improved soviet operational command structure assured victory anyway) was the complete sucking of the LW out of Russia to defend Germany itself and to desperately try to shield the heer in france

AGC at the middle stages of bagration was only supported by 40 fighters which allowed soviet tactical aircraft to knock out german tanks and artillery positions in droves and keep the germans from assembling in any sort of large numbers to counter attack

some sort of pod that keeps the LW in russia would greatly help the germans... maybe after the high losses in 43 bomber command and the 8th air force are deprioritized or something like that

This is the exact same thing I am thinking as being the easiest way to blunt Bagration. 60% of the Nazi ground forces were on the eastern front in June of 1944. 60% of the Luftwaffe should have been as well. By this point the air war in the west was essentially over and the LW's efforts in that theater were little more than suicide missions. At the very latest, Goering and Hitler should have figured out by say March of '44 that stopping the bomber waves with fighters was useless and focused on flak defenses for the Reich.

Stopping Bagration in its tracks may have been close to ASB, but being outnumbered in the air 2:1 instead of the actual 5:1 would have helped the Nazis tremendously. With that airpower ratio it would have been much harder for the Soviets to execute the tactical bombing and ground attack missions that were so vital to Bagration.

Other suggestions:

--Keep the Panthers and Tigers in the EAST where they belong. There were no western tanks that a Panzer Mark 4 could not handle.
--End the hold-every-square-inch-at-all-costs command.

I think that with these three together, while the Germans still lose Bagration, it is an extremely costly, Pyrrhic victory for the Soviets that perhaps lays them up for the better part of a year.
 
Top