Rommel's Barbarossa 1942 (Continued from Manstein in Africa)

Don't forget the Arctic route. IIRC, most OTL Lend-Lease came in through Murmansk & Arcangel'sk anyhow.

The Royal Navy is practically beaten in this TL while the Kriegsmarine is highly successful and able to cooperate with the Luftwaffe.
In other words:
The Murmansk convoys are going to be raped in this TL and the US would have to deploy carrier groups to cover them against air, surface and subsurface attacks by the Axis.
 
Last edited:
It appears we were talking past each other.:rolleyes: For me, the issue was the impact on convoys with Japan & U.S. (& others) at war.

OK. In that case, the Axis should indeed have problems in convoys. I'm no expert in how able they were to defend them, so I'll go with you and assume that they are bad in it. In that case, with only the Indian ocean between German and Japanese-controled lands, I think they'd try to ship convoys between them and therefore should suffer substantial losses.

I do agree, RN might stop if Britain were knocked out. Or HMG might withdraw & fight on. (I'm less sure the Commonwealth would follow her into a peace deal. Would Oz, after being attacked by Japan? I have my doubts. Canada was such a weak sister, it's impossible to know.) Bases? How does Oz grab you? Fiji? Samoa? Hawaii?

Good points. I'd say that with Britain suffering enough defeats to knock them out, we won't see "free Brits" or Dominions fighting on. After all, it's not only Britain who suffered those defeats. The Axis would have an enourmous superiority in industrial capacity and equipment against the remaining Allies.

Australia might have been attacked. But without a major ally fighting on, would they continue the fight on their own if the Axis offer them a status quo peace?
 

Eurofed

Banned
I really think the threat is exaggerated. Yes, the losses on the Arctic route are liable to be high, perhaps prohibitive. (OTOH, it might prod RN/USN/RCN into early adopting a tanker conversion CVE, which took a lot longer OTL.).

But ITTL the Kriegsmarine/Regia Marina teamup (soon to be joined by the portion of Marine Nationale under Vichy control) in the Atlantic is much stronger, and the USN/RN much weaker. At least until the effects of the big US naval buildup are felt, but they take time, and the Axis is doing one huge naval buildup of its own. There is going to be a relatively long window when the Axis is close to an upper hand in the Atlantic theater, and the Allies efforts are going to be focused on keeping the sealanes to Britain open. Land-Lease to Russia would be a rather secondary concern anyway. Also because Stalin attacked first, so the Western Allies are going to be rather more distustful of Soviet Russia ITTL.

The mooted IJN threat to the PTO route is nil, as noted. And IJA's threat to the Red Army, Pz4 or no Pz4, is small IMO; IJA doctrine against armor was incompetent (worse than British doctrine against panzern,:eek: hard as that is to believe:rolleyes:), & I have no reason to think IJA tank operation doctrine is any better. So Red Army, with better armor & the best AT guns in Asia, shoot the IJA tanks to pieces, in part using lessons learned from the Germans in Europe. Which makes taking Vladivostok extraordinarily unlikely IMO. Or do Red Army officers not communicate across their own country TTL? To their own comrades? Too inconvenient for this wank?

You may notice that ITTL the Soviets are going to face a much tougher committment in the West, with an TTL quite larger and stronger Axis Armada counterattacking from Finland to Caucasus. Even with the oomph that an extra year of buildup gave them (but it is partially nullified by Russia attacking first, for various reasons), I remain very doubtful that they can afford to keep as many forces in the Far East as they could do IOTL. There are limits to how much a superior doctrine can save the day for the Russians. Therefore I don't see Japan capturing Vladivostok so unlikely with the help of superior German tanks, even if the IJA is no doubt going to bleed a lot for it.
 
Last edited:
But ITTL the Kriegsmarine/Regia Marina teamup (soon to be joined by the portion of Marine nationale still under Vichy control) in the Atlantic is much stronger, and the USN/RN much weaker. At least until the effects of the US naval buildup are felt, but they take time, and the Axis is doing one huge naval buildup of its own. There is going to be a relatively long window when the Axis is close to an upper hand in the theater, and the Allies efforts are going to be focused on keeping the sealanes to Britain open. Land-Lease would be a much secondary concern anyway.



You may notice that ITTL the Soviets are going to face a much tougher committment in the West, with an TTL quite larger and stronger Axis Armada counterattacking from Finland to Caucasus. Even with the oomph that an year year of buildup gave them (but it is partially nullified by Russia attacking first, for various reasons), I remain very doubtful that they can afford to keep as many forces in the Far East as they could do IOTL. There are limits to how much a superior doctrine can save the day for the Russians. Therefore I don't see Japan capturing Vladivostok so unlikely with the help of superior German tanks, even if the IJA is not doubt going to bleed a lot for it.


Sorry for not updating book three... I have been in bed essentially for a week with back spasms and am just getting back on track now.

It should be noted that with a retirement to defensive positions in China/setting up economy of force, the Japanese on full mobilization could deploy 40-45 divisions against Russia. Japanese infantry divisions where large, nearly double the size of a contemporary Russian rifle division. They where well led at the company and battalion level, and had a knack for ilfiltration and finding soft spots in defensive positions. Their individual soldiers where also highly motivated and aggressive.

They have a division's worth of Panzer MK 4's and will be switching over to the FW-190. Given the low quality and poor training of Russian pilots in otl and the high levels of experience in most of the Japanese air force, its safe to assume they would have air superiority when the fighting would first break out and in conjunction with the massive war with the Germans would likely keep it for the short and medium term

their weaknesses would be in having inadequet anti tank guns (which the Germans had in the first stages of barbarossa but still advanced), lack of mobile artillery, lack of modern aa guns, and weakness in quality of their infantry weapons. some of this can be addressed by additional german licenses (particlarly for the 88mm dual purpose gun) otherwise they have to hope that the main russian reserves get sucked in against the Germans so that they can have an advance against a numerically inferior enemy.
 
There is going to be a relatively long window when the Axis is close to an upper hand in the Atlantic theater, and the Allies efforts are going to be focused on keeping the sealanes to Britain open. Land-Lease to Russia would be a rather secondary concern anyway. Also because Stalin attacked first, so the Western Allies are going to be rather more distustful of Soviet Russia ITTL.
This is an excellent point.
With Britain facing a serious danger of being cut off, the threat of an invasion still looming (with no powerful Royal Navy left to seal off the Channel) and with the Soviet Union attacking first, why should the Americans give Land-Lease to the Soviets anyway?
The American public is going to support a dedicated support for the British and will ask for a way and means to get back at the Germans, just like it did in OTL after Pearl Harbour.
Doolitle's Raid was what the US public needed after Pearl Harbour in OTL and they are going to want similar actions against the Germans. The public does not care if the Soviet soldier eats US or Russian can beans or the ammo is transported to him on a US or Russian made lorry. It wants actions!
 
OK. In that case, the Axis should indeed have problems in convoys. I'm no expert in how able they were to defend them, so I'll go with you and assume that they are bad in it. In that case, with only the Indian ocean between German and Japanese-controled lands, I think they'd try to ship convoys between them and therefore should suffer substantial losses.
Have a look at Parillo on Japan's merchant marine; IJN convoy defense was pretty hopeless.
Good points. I'd say that with Britain suffering enough defeats to knock them out, we won't see "free Brits" or Dominions fighting on.
Agreed. With the U.S. in the war, IMO, the chance of Britain quitting is pretty remote. Recall the Continental System; here, the U.S. replaces Russia (or maybe SU does, too...:rolleyes:)
Australia might have been attacked. But without a major ally fighting on, would they continue the fight on their own if the Axis offer them a status quo peace?
I'd say the U.S. qualifies as "a major ally fighting on", wouldn't you?:p
But ITTL the Kriegsmarine/Regia Marina teamup (soon to be joined by the portion of Marine Nationale under Vichy control) in the Atlantic is much stronger, and the USN/RN much weaker. At least until the effects of the big US naval buildup are felt, but they take time, and the Axis is doing one huge naval buildup of its own.
No argument. Don't forget, tho, the Brits have been building merchants for about 2yr already, & 'vettes for about 18mo (IIRC). Also, convoys are a lot harder to find than they may seem from the histories.

Moreover, I suggest again, RAF efforts may, indeed must, change. If losses are less acceptable, switching Bomber Command from hazardous city bombing to low-hazard mining & canal & railyard bombing, IMO, is essential. When that happens, the impact on Germany's war economy is enormous. (USSBS points out how easy it would be, even allowing for inaccuracy of attack typical to 1940.)
There is going to be a relatively long window when the Axis is close to an upper hand in the Atlantic theater, and the Allies efforts are going to be focused on keeping the sealanes to Britain open. Land-Lease to Russia would be a rather secondary concern anyway. Also because Stalin attacked first, so the Western Allies are going to be rather more distustful of Soviet Russia ITTL.
Given no other changes, I'd agree with you. OTOH, if the Allies respond with MACs & changes to bombing tactics & strategy, the Axis window could slam shut in a matter of weeks.
...I remain very doubtful that they can afford to keep as many forces in the Far East as they could do IOTL. There are limits to how much a superior doctrine can save the day for the Russians. Therefore I don't see Japan capturing Vladivostok so unlikely with the help of superior German tanks, even if the IJA is no doubt going to bleed a lot for it.
You have to get the armor to the battlefield, first. Japan's production capacity was stretched as it was; her production of Pz4s would be much lower than of OTL indig designs. Pz4s, moreover, were not a match for the T-34s in the Far East, nor was IJA tank-fighting doctrine even good enough for the Red Army's in '39. IMO, a Japanese attack in Siberia is liable to look like Nomonhan writ large, & end up being a disaster, even if Stalin pulls (some) Siberian divisions out.

Moreover, as USSBS points out, it was frigtheningly easy for U.S. CVs to raise merry hell with Japan's coal supplies. Was it possible to accelerate the likes of Azon or Bat?

Furthermore, given the changed circumstances, it's probable there'd be changed construction priorities (more Liberty ships & MAC ships, fewer BBs, say). That being so, fewer carriers for PTO than OTL is possible, forcing Nimitz to rely more on subs than OTL, which might mean curing the Mk14/Mk6 sooner than OTL; it might instead (or also) mean more reliance on mining, which OTL he was a bit hostile to (or at least indifferent). (Yes, this is a favorite of mine. Sue me.:rolleyes:
 

Eurofed

Banned
No argument. Don't forget, tho, the Brits have been building merchants for about 2yr already, & 'vettes for about 18mo (IIRC). Also, convoys are a lot harder to find than they may seem from the histories.

Moreover, I suggest again, RAF efforts may, indeed must, change. If losses are less acceptable, switching Bomber Command from hazardous city bombing to low-hazard mining & canal & railyard bombing, IMO, is essential. When that happens, the impact on Germany's war economy is enormous. (USSBS points out how easy it would be, even allowing for inaccuracy of attack typical to 1940.)

No doubt that the Allies could do all of that. I'm not so sure that they would necessarily change their bombing strategy, given that both the British and the Americans ware quite stubborn on their respective pet bombing strategies throughout OTL, despite all contrary evidence. I suspect they would just react by redoubling their efforts (i.e. try to churn out more bombers and pilots, but stick with OTL methods). Also because, with the extensive Axis economic integration, and the entry of Spain and Vichy France in the coalition, bombing western Germany is not enough anymore to try and make (and fail, but that's clear only in hindsight) a serious dent in Axis war effort. Even if of course Germany remains the industrial giant of the coalition, the Allies now have to spread a signficant chunk of their air effort to northern France and northern Italy, and give a passing nod to Spain, since eastern Germany is beyond their reach.

Anyway, even the means you suggest would, at best, allow the Allies to get a better deal in the Battle of the Atlantic, as it concerns Britain. I rather doubt it would be enough to make the Murmansk route really viable. Also because, for the political concerns arising from Stalin attacking first, I expect the Allies to be more loath to expend big chunks of their blood and money to keep Stalin afloat.

Given no other changes, I'd agree with you. OTOH, if the Allies respond with MACs & changes to bombing tactics & strategy, the Axis window could slam shut in a matter of weeks.

Quite possible for MACs. I remain more skeptic that they would change their bombing tactics & strategy so easily.

You have to get the armor to the battlefield, first. Japan's production capacity was stretched as it was; her production of Pz4s would be much lower than of OTL indig designs. Pz4s, moreover, were not a match for the T-34s in the Far East, nor was IJA tank-fighting doctrine even good enough for the Red Army's in '39. IMO, a Japanese attack in Siberia is liable to look like Nomonhan writ large, & end up being a disaster, even if Stalin pulls (some) Siberian divisions out.

As I said upthread, there is a limit to how much quality can balance quantity. Pz4s would make a big difference in comparison to Japanese own stuff vs. the T-34s, even if they remain inferior. And I expect Stalin to pull out most of the Siberian divisions out when the Axis gets serious with its strategic counterattack. Remember, even scaling for 1942 Red Army levels, Soviet Russia ITTL faces a much stronger Axis, with a front stretching from Finland to Iran. In all likelihood, the Far East Soviet deployment comes close to be a fairly empty shell. Also be mindful of all the factors in favor of Japan that BW quoted upthread.

Moreover, as USSBS points out, it was frigtheningly easy for U.S. CVs to raise merry hell with Japan's coal supplies. Was it possible to accelerate the likes of Azon or Bat?

Furthermore, given the changed circumstances, it's probable there'd be changed construction priorities (more Liberty ships & MAC ships, fewer BBs, say). That being so, fewer carriers for PTO than OTL is possible, forcing Nimitz to rely more on subs than OTL, which might mean curing the Mk14/Mk6 sooner than OTL; it might instead (or also) mean more reliance on mining, which OTL he was a bit hostile to (or at least indifferent). (Yes, this is a favorite of mine. Sue me.:rolleyes:

All of this is possible, even if I do regard some options (more MACs) more likely than others (different bombing tactics & strategy), and I very much doubt it is enough or quick enough to save Russia.

Moreover, it appears from post-Tiger chapters that American (typical) answer to Tiger & Meatgrinder losses has been, predictably, "more of the above", i.e. going for the big capital-ships-heavy buildup. Switching to a MAC-heavy buildup may require some time.
 
...I'm not so sure that they would necessarily change their bombing strategy, given that both the British and the Americans ware quite stubborn on their respective pet bombing strategies throughout OTL, despite all contrary evidence. I suspect they would just react by redoubling their efforts (i.e. try to churn out more bombers and pilots, but stick with OTL methods).
Possible, maybe even likely. OTOH, TTL is much bleaker than OTL, & neither Portal nor Churchill is an idiot. TTL, big impacts are being seen before Harris ever takes over. It may be possible to move Peirse (?) where Harris wouldn't be moved. I'm only suggesting the option was there; it's not "bombing or nothing", as is usually suggested.
Anyway, even the means you suggest would, at best, allow the Allies to get a better deal in the Battle of the Atlantic, as it concerns Britain. I rather doubt it would be enough to make the Murmansk route really viable. Also because, for the political concerns arising from Stalin attacking first, I expect the Allies to be more loath to expend big chunks of their blood and money to keep Stalin afloat.
As noted, reading this only confirms my belief, losses are overstated. ("During the five months from May through September 1942 about 1800 ships were convoyed monthly in the U. S. coastal convoys and only about 12 of these ships were sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of less than I per cent per trip. During the first nine months of 1942, about 1000 ships were convoyed monthly in ocean convoys and about 15 of these ships were sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of about 1.2 per cent per trip. he convoy run to and from Russia was particularly hazardous during this period, with about 34 ships sailing monthly and about three of these being sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of about 9 per cent per trip.") MAC ships reduce them even more. So do B-24s in Gander, dramatically so. ASV.II for Coastal Command, rather than Bomber Command, also. Presuming increased (perceived) threat to convoys, & responding more effectively than OTL (B-24s & ASV), I suggest PQs might still keep SU fighting, even with no other (doctrinal) changes. Let me be clear: small changes from OTL have very large impacts on U-boats' effectiveness (or on ASW effectiveness).
As I said upthread, there is a limit to how much quality can balance quantity. Pz4s would make a big difference in comparison to Japanese own stuff vs. the T-34s, even if they remain inferior.
Agreed. Flipside is, Pz4 can't make up for sheer IJA incompetence.
Also be mindful of all the factors in favor of Japan that BW quoted upthread.
I won't say it will be a cakewalk for Red Army in Siberia by any means. OTOH, it's EZr to deliver M4s through Vladivistok than by Trans-Siberian Railway.:p And IJN is unlikely to stop U.S. convoys. Would it be in time to save SU from collapse? Maybe not; here, IMO, the question is how much Hitler gets to be Hitler & completely screw things up.
Moreover, it appears from post-Tiger chapters that American (typical) answer to Tiger & Meatgrinder losses has been, predictably, "more of the above", i.e. going for the big capital-ships-heavy buildup. Switching to a MAC-heavy buildup may require some time.
:mad: Which appears to be the pattern, I'm afraid: the Allies TTL are all idiots, making no adjustment at all for changed circumstances...:mad::confused:
 
Last edited:
:mad: Which appears to be the pattern, I'm afraid: the Allies TTL are all idiots, making no adjustment at all for changed circumstances...:mad::confused:

That's part of the premise of the TL, right? IOTL, we had pretty much the opposite pattern. The Allies cooperated well and the Axis did not. IOTL, the Allies made the better choices in tech and development, whereas the Germans build Maus Panzers...

ITTL both are reverted: the Axis are leading in cooperation and even share technology, equippment and training, and ITTL the Axis make the better choices in development and tech.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Possible, maybe even likely. OTOH, TTL is much bleaker than OTL, & neither Portal nor Churchill is an idiot. TTL, big impacts are being seen before Harris ever takes over. It may be possible to move Peirse (?) where Harris wouldn't be moved. I'm only suggesting the option was there; it's not "bombing or nothing", as is usually suggested.

On this, we may agree. I just point out that Churchill is no longer at the helm. Attlee is in charge.

As noted, reading this only confirms my belief, losses are overstated. ("During the five months from May through September 1942 about 1800 ships were convoyed monthly in the U. S. coastal convoys and only about 12 of these ships were sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of less than I per cent per trip. During the first nine months of 1942, about 1000 ships were convoyed monthly in ocean convoys and about 15 of these ships were sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of about 1.2 per cent per trip. he convoy run to and from Russia was particularly hazardous during this period, with about 34 ships sailing monthly and about three of these being sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of about 9 per cent per trip.") MAC ships reduce them even more. So do B-24s in Gander, dramatically so. ASV.II for Coastal Command, rather than Bomber Command, also. Presuming increased (perceived) threat to convoys, & responding more effectively than OTL (B-24s & ASV), I suggest PQs might still keep SU fighting, even with no other (doctrinal) changes. Let me be clear: small changes from OTL have very large impacts on U-boats' effectiveness (or on ASW effectiveness).

A good point.

Agreed. Flipside is, Pz4 can't make up for sheer IJA incompetence.

I won't say it will be a cakewalk for Red Army in Siberia by any means. OTOH, it's EZr to deliver M4s through Vladivistok than by Trans-Siberian Railway.:p And IJN is unlikely to stop U.S. convoys.

OK.

Would it be in time to save SU from collapse? Maybe not; here, IMO, the question is how much Hitler gets to be Hitler & completely screw things up.

ITTL, it seems that Hitler does his screwing up things part by starting Tiger. OTOH, it is also true that as long as Germany was winning, Hitler was less liable to interfere in the decisions of the professionals he trusted. ITTL, he's got a group of military leaders that have delivered victory after victory, it is plausible that they keep enough of his ear to talk him out of most bad decisions.

:mad: Which appears to be the pattern, I'm afraid: the Allies TTL are all idiots, making no adjustment at all for changed circumstances...:mad::confused:

Reacting to adversity with more quantity, not a change in methods, is a response that fits American mindset, I'm afraid (see the Vietnam War) and is also consistent with the political will to reverse the setback of meatgrinder, which largely cut down the USN.
 
I just point out that Churchill is no longer at the helm. Attlee is in charge.
Noted. Consider it my default meaning "PM". AFAIK Attlee isn't a total nitwit, either.:p He may be more willing to fire AoCinC Bomber Command TTL, too, given changed circumstances.
ITTL, it seems that Hitler does his screwing up things part by starting Tiger. OTOH, it is also true that as long as Germany was winning, Hitler was less liable to interfere in the decisions of the professionals he trusted. ITTL, he's got a group of military leaders that have delivered victory after victory, it is plausible that they keep enough of his ear to talk him out of most bad decisions.
That is really the nightmare scenario, isn't it: effective Germans.:eek::eek: My issue on "screwing up", tho, was focused on Barbarossa around Aug-Sept: he blundered over Moscow, diverted forces to (IIRC, offhand) the Ukraine rather than allowing a pause (to rest & re-equip) before taking Moscow, & in the process, threw away the chance. TTL, Stalin has effectively taken that out of his hands, & with Rommel in Russia, it may be Hitler does butt out entirely...:eek:
Reacting to adversity with more quantity, not a change in methods, is a response that fits American mindset, I'm afraid (see the Vietnam War) and is also consistent with the political will to reverse the setback of meatgrinder, which largely cut down the USN.
I don't disagree, there. I am thinking more of British change, 'cause it was (contrary to what most may believe) a mainly RN/RCN effort which won the Battle of the Atlantic, aided (immeasurably, I admit) by U.S. construction of Liberty ships & a/c. That being true TTL, & given even TTL doesn't radically change the U-boat situation (no Type 21s in '41, frex), it means Overlord might go off ahead of OTL schedule: no Italian campaign means no need to tie up large quantities of shipping on supplies for the troops (& Italian civilians...), which also means both number of troops & total shipping is less (if they aren't going to Italy, they're going to Britain, preparing to invade & not getting killed...). (Can I also suggest AFUS accepting a revision of its supply approach, so there aren't huge quantities of crap sent across, which troops don't actually use,:eek::confused: as was done OTL?:confused:)

If we accept "Germany first" survives (& I don't see it wouldn't), IMO Japan TTL gets far less attention than OTL, which means Nimitz has to get by with much less. In the long run, that might be worse for Japan. (My pet theory, repetition 10000.:p) Namely, he's forced to rely on subs himself, therefore discovers & fixes the torpedo problem sooner, therefore the Japanese economy crashes much sooner (1/44? 9/43...?:eek: The first readily possible, the second just in reach)...which puts the Bomb on (say) Dresden around OTL schedule for the firebombing. (Or we can adopt another pet one of mine,:rolleyes: Ike immobilizes Patton in mid-Aug '44, Crerar clears the Scheldt Estuary around 3 Sept, & the war ends by Xmas '44. Ho ho ho.)
 
Noted. Consider it my default meaning "PM". AFAIK Attlee isn't a total nitwit, either.:p He may be more willing to fire AoCinC Bomber Command TTL, too, given changed circumstances.

That is really the nightmare scenario, isn't it: effective Germans.:eek::eek: My issue on "screwing up", tho, was focused on Barbarossa around Aug-Sept: he blundered over Moscow, diverted forces to (IIRC, offhand) the Ukraine rather than allowing a pause (to rest & re-equip) before taking Moscow, & in the process, threw away the chance. TTL, Stalin has effectively taken that out of his hands, & with Rommel in Russia, it may be Hitler does butt out entirely...:eek:

I don't disagree, there. I am thinking more of British change, 'cause it was (contrary to what most may believe) a mainly RN/RCN effort which won the Battle of the Atlantic, aided (immeasurably, I admit) by U.S. construction of Liberty ships & a/c. That being true TTL, & given even TTL doesn't radically change the U-boat situation (no Type 21s in '41, frex), it means Overlord might go off ahead of OTL schedule: no Italian campaign means no need to tie up large quantities of shipping on supplies for the troops (& Italian civilians...), which also means both number of troops & total shipping is less (if they aren't going to Italy, they're going to Britain, preparing to invade & not getting killed...). (Can I also suggest AFUS accepting a revision of its supply approach, so there aren't huge quantities of crap sent across, which troops don't actually use,:eek::confused: as was done OTL?:confused:)

If we accept "Germany first" survives (& I don't see it wouldn't), IMO Japan TTL gets far less attention than OTL, which means Nimitz has to get by with much less. In the long run, that might be worse for Japan. (My pet theory, repetition 10000.:p) Namely, he's forced to rely on subs himself, therefore discovers & fixes the torpedo problem sooner, therefore the Japanese economy crashes much sooner (1/44? 9/43...?:eek: The first readily possible, the second just in reach)...which puts the Bomb on (say) Dresden around OTL schedule for the firebombing. (Or we can adopt another pet one of mine,:rolleyes: Ike immobilizes Patton in mid-Aug '44, Crerar clears the Scheldt Estuary around 3 Sept, & the war ends by Xmas '44. Ho ho ho.)


Gents, would prefer we move the banter to the book 3 so it can enjoy the bumpage (two new updates yesterday :))

phx a note on going for Moscow, from my military understanding, such as it is... I think in going after the Ukraine Hitler made the right call. It is orthadox military doctrine to clear your flanks before a headlong advance. If AGC was to go strait at Moscow without eliminating the Kiev military district, they would be running the sort of risk they ran at Stalingrad (and got torn up by it) namely, there would be a huge open space between the second panzer army operating on the Moscow axis and the second infantry army which was covering their right flank, and would have to face more resistance, and was less mobile. You can't have a flank 300-500 miles long (as it would turn out to be) that would essentially be undefended (guderians army only had 10-13 divisions at any given time and they where essentially all needed at the spear point) with a massive soviet army group (500k men +) in position to strike that flank and cut off the spear heads.

Hitler's big mistake wasn't in clearing the Ukraine, which there was political, economic and military reasoning behind, it was starting operation Typhoon too late in the year after his forces where exausted. Postponing Typhoon till the spring not only leaves far more German forces in tact, but it also assures that when the Soviet's launch their winter counter attack that they will be attacking the powerful Oka defensive line (which operation mars more than showed wasn't going to be broken without an effort that even the 1943 red army wasn't exactly capable of) This in turn keeps German morale high because they won't have been defeated, and Russian morale low because they would lack their "winter miricle"
 
Hitler's big mistake wasn't in clearing the Ukraine, which there was political, economic and military reasoning behind, it was starting operation Typhoon too late in the year after his forces where exausted. Postponing Typhoon till the spring not only leaves far more German forces in tact, but it also assures that when the Soviet's launch their winter counter attack that they will be attacking the powerful Oka defensive line (which operation mars more than showed wasn't going to be broken without an effort that even the 1943 red army wasn't exactly capable of) This in turn keeps German morale high because they won't have been defeated, and Russian morale low because they would lack their "winter miricle"


With Moscow out of immediate troubles, Red Army offensive would either go toward Leningrad or not launch attack at all, at least not any place where the axis have strong defences.
He should have not launched operation Typhoon altogether, neither planned to seize Leningrad, but that in order to spare the forces for a caucase road breakthrough.
Then in spring, launch a diversion attack aimed at Moscow, before the real offensive starts against the caucase, without bothering with Crimea.
Moscow in 1942 would have been even more difficult to storm than Leningrad and Stalingrad put together, pushing back the Red Army from the Moscow region would most probably have been Kursk a year earlier.
So yeah, Hitler was right to avoid Moscow in 42*, his only mistake was not to have made that realisation earlier.

Seizing the city would have still been possible in 1941, barbarossa not delayed, attempt on Leningrad replaced with mere "liberation" of the baltic countries and have the city attacked, without warning, with dozens of tonnes of taburn or sarin, radioactive aerosols, anthrax before winter. Either by artillery, bombers or an optimal combination of both.


* Even if he had fully mobilised the German economy 6-9 months earlier, Germany would have run out of soldiers much faster than historically.
 
Last edited:

elkarlo

Banned
Where did anybody make the assumption that most of Latin America would sympathize with the Axis? It was postulated that it would be fairly easy and a logical step to insert Spanish speakers into Mexico and have them make their way to the US via the US/Mex border, hiding themselves in the lower strata of US society. [irony]Just a handful more wetbacks[/irony]. Who would notice? Infiltrate targets by joining a cleaning column or whatever subterfuge presents itself. The inevitable capture of at least some of those commandos would add another ethnic group in the US to be ostracized, increasing inner instability in the country...

Have them hit the Naval bases along the Cali coast, other istallations, too. Maybe an all-out attack on the Hoover Dam before security gets too tight?
Pack a speedboat or six with explosives and water pressure fuses, run into the basin to the dam wall, sink the boat, crack the wall. Or enter the dam and blow up the turbines. The risk would be well worth the gain.

Thinking like a terrorist is fun :cool::D

Or even if they are porrlyish trained, they could still damage some of the aircraft factories in LA. Which could do some real damage. Like wreck a few machines, putting the factory offline for a few days.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Not sure if this is dead or not.

But what the hey


It makes me laugh about how supposedly all those ships are being built in Europe. IT takes a long time to build the necesary facilities to build large ships. France had only a few slips; no one else had any; germany had a couple.

So that is truly ASB. No way could they have anything before mid 1943.

The Italian BBs had poor protection and their damage control was poor as well. As was shown many times.

Got news for you as regards 11" and 13" shells hitting SD class US Battleships- not a lot of damage will be done. They were designed to take 16" hits.

And oh by the way the German and Italian designed AP shells were not all that great.

I could also go on by mentioning that the US would have accelerated by going to around the clock shifts in building the ships- which was not done until sometime after Pearl Harbor in OTL. In this case by Early 1941 they would have gone to double shifts- much sooner then earlier; 3 shifts by mid 1941. . The Result would be that the US Fleet that started to Show up early in 1943 would have come in almost one year earlier. Early 1942. And Germany and company are toast on the high seas.


For all your high words about integration, the fact is that there was not that much industrial capacity in Europe outside of Germany and parts of France. Italy did not have that much. And transport of raw materials; and the infrastructure was just not there.


This is ASB.
 
Top