WI; Germany postpones Operation Barbarossa

[ac220v]

Something no one has mentioned and that seems odd to me is that if Barbarossa is delayed and the Soviets make enormous quantities of the T-34 and KV-1 tanks wouldn't the Germans have a much better chance of getting tipped off to what the Soviets were doing? That alone could have put some of the upgraded weapons under discussion here to be implemented or hurried into production ASAP. Germans didn't have to be blindsided by the superior tanks of the Soviets, could have prepared for the encounter.

Nope. Germans did know about these types IOTL, but largerly dismissed them, and not entirely without reason.
Everybody knows now that T-34 was revolutionary design, and that it worked. But back then it wasn't anything combat-proven, and Germans did face some pretty heavily armored tanks during French campaign without much trouble.

Of course, T-34 had more powerful engine and much more of a gun (and the way Kotin managed to cram all this into mass-producible design was that revolution) but I just can see how German generals might dismiss T-34 as "yet another overarmored design, just like French used to have."

 

[FloRida]

Germany and The Soviet Union produced roughly the same amount of tanks while at war in 1942. To assume that if they weren't attacked the Soviets would have pumped out more is ridiculous. Waiting a year isn't the problem. I believe that the Germans would have won had the captured Moscow in 1941. If they simply started the campaign to Moscow a mere two weeks earlier it would have been enough time to reach Moscow before the Siberian Reinforcements get there and the winter really sets in. I think the amount of propaganda produced from the capture of Moscow, as well as the demoralized effect on the Russians (which would be multiplied by them getting their ass whooped for about 6 months now) would have been enough to win the war for Germany.

LOL at the Soviet Union invading Germany. Even if they were armed to the teeth and outnumber the Germans/Axis by an outragous figure. The lack of traing/ tactics would have limited their success. The Soviet miltary could not have been successful until they learned what they were doing wrong and what the Germans were doing right. Once they started fighting like the Germans thats when they started to have success. I think a Soviet invasion of Germany prior to a German invasion would have led to them losing the war. The Germans would have felt desperate and they wouldn't have wasted resources on needless or ideaological goals. Also no way the Soviets are anywhere near ready to invade Germany prior to 1943 and even that would be a stretch.

 

[Jozon]

Germany and The Soviet Union produced roughly the same amount of tanks while at war in 1942. To assume that if they weren't attacked the Soviets would have pumped out more is ridiculous. [...]

Not again...
I will once more, just like the last time you claimed this, come up with the numbers:
From "Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet war 1941-1945" by Evan Mawdsley:
Comparative armaments production, Jan. 1941-Dec. 1942

Rifles: Germany: 1,359,000 (1941) 1,370,000 (1942); USSR: 2,421,000 (1941) 4,049,000 (1942)
MG: Germany: 96,000 (1941) 117,000 (1942); USSR: 149,000 (1941) 356,000 (1942)
Artillery: Germany: 22,000 (1941) 41,000 (1942); USSR: 41,000 (1941) 128,000 (1942)
Tanks/SPG: Germany: 3,800 (1941) 6,200 (1942); USSR: 6,600 (1941) 24,700 (1942)
Combat Aircraft: Germany: 8,400 (1941) 11,600 (1942); USSR: 12,400 (1941) 21,700 (1942)

 

[ac220v]

And Soviet invasion simply won't happen.
Why? Stalin was absolutely, definitely not wanting to help Britain in any way. (His belief that most of the intelligence on Barbarossa was British provocation is quite a proof, if one is needed. ) On the other hand, he got almost everything he wanted to get in Europe, and the longer Hitler would delay the invasion, the better for Stalin.

 

[Urban fox]

I’m surprised no-one mentioned the Stalin line. Soviet troops would've had an extra year to fortify the borders areas and set up a defence-in-depth.

 

[Churchill]

I’m surprised no-one mentioned the Stalin line. Soviet troops would've had an extra year to fortify the borders areas and set up a defence-in-depth.

This would have led to more Soviets been surrounded.
What was needed was a mobile defence.

 

[Jukra]

One aspect which could be noted that Germans would probably be able to use Mediterranean and Black Sea as a logistics route if they postponed the invasion to 1942 and used resources in Middle East. This would mean that instead of supplying the whole circus via use of railroads much of the supplies could have been shipped through Northern Italian and Southern French harbors using German-Italian and German-French rail links. Vice versa, the resources grabbed from Southern SU could have been shipped to Italy and France.

The distance in air kilometers from Berlin to Stalingrad, for example, is some 2200km's, while distance from Black Sea SPOD, say Rostov-na-Danu is just 450km's.

Yes, Germans did use Black Sea as a logistics pipeline even in OTL, but in OTL they did not have significant use of trans-mediterranean shipping. Basically they had to transfer supplies either via use of railroads or Danube to Black Sea ports and then transship the supplies to ports in Ukraine.

 

[merlin]

And Soviet invasion simply won't happen.
Why? Stalin was absolutely, definitely not wanting to help Britain in any way. (His belief that most of the intelligence on Barbarossa was British provocation is quite a proof, if one is needed. ) On the other hand, he got almost everything he wanted to get in Europe, and the longer Hitler would delay the invasion, the better for Stalin.

Disagree.
What has 'helping the British' got to do with a Russian invasion? It would have happened for Russian benefit, not to help the British.
It was because Stalin wanted more, that convinced Hitler to proceed the the German invasion. He sent Luftwaffe units to Rumania, as a 'line in the sand' to show Stalin that Rumania was in the German sphere of influence (Germany needed the oil).
So yes, it had to be '41.

 

[Redbeard]

Germany and The Soviet Union produced roughly the same amount of tanks while at war in 1942. To assume that if they weren't attacked the Soviets would have pumped out more is ridiculous. Waiting a year isn't the problem. I believe that the Germans would have won had the captured Moscow in 1941. If they simply started the campaign to Moscow a mere two weeks earlier it would have been enough time to reach Moscow before the Siberian Reinforcements get there and the winter really sets in. I think the amount of propaganda produced from the capture of Moscow, as well as the demoralized effect on the Russians (which would be multiplied by them getting their ass whooped for about 6 months now) would have been enough to win the war for Germany.

LOL at the Soviet Union invading Germany. Even if they were armed to the teeth and outnumber the Germans/Axis by an outragous figure. The lack of traing/ tactics would have limited their success. The Soviet miltary could not have been successful until they learned what they were doing wrong and what the Germans were doing right. Once they started fighting like the Germans thats when they started to have success. I think a Soviet invasion of Germany prior to a German invasion would have led to them losing the war. The Germans would have felt desperate and they wouldn't have wasted resources on needless or ideaological goals. Also no way the Soviets are anywhere near ready to invade Germany prior to 1943 and even that would be a stretch.

What do you base your assumptions on?

Why/how would a Red Army left in peace until 1942 be laccking training and doctrines?

How is it, that an ATL where you don't have to relocate most of the industry doesn't have prodiction improve compared to OTL?

In what way did the Soviets start fighting like the Germans? I can only see that they stuck to their own methods and doctrines for the whole war, but just got better at it.

Why do you think we need to go to 1943 earliest to have the Red Army be ready for largescale offensive operation? Might it be that you are inspired by OTL? But as this is ATL with the PoD being no German-Soviet war until 1942 I assume you mean that the difference between loosing almost your entire peacetime army and being left in peace for another year to complete a huge expansion programme is insignificant? Can you explain how?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Redbeard]

This would have led to more Soviets been surrounded.
What was needed was a mobile defence.

Fortifications and mobile defence are not mutually exclusive. Soviet doctrine combined the two with great potential, but in OTL 1941 the original fortified regions on the old Soviet-Polish border had been dismantled and new ones not yet ready at the new border and the mobile forces were in disarray following the ongoing expanison programme and several re-organisations.

In this ATL the fortified regions and many of the front line RA units are indeed going to be initially surrounded, but considering how big difficulties the Wehrmact had in OTL in containing the encirclements they might easily meet their Stalingrad much earlier in this ATL.

One aspect which could be noted that Germans would probably be able to use Mediterranean and Black Sea as a logistics route if they postponed the invasion to 1942 and used resources in Middle East. This would mean that instead of supplying the whole circus via use of railroads much of the supplies could have been shipped through Northern Italian and Southern French harbors using German-Italian and German-French rail links. Vice versa, the resources grabbed from Southern SU could have been shipped to Italy and France.

The distance in air kilometers from Berlin to Stalingrad, for example, is some 2200km's, while distance from Black Sea SPOD, say Rostov-na-Danu is just 450km's.

Yes, Germans did use Black Sea as a logistics pipeline even in OTL, but in OTL they did not have significant use of trans-mediterranean shipping. Basically they had to transfer supplies either via use of railroads or Danube to Black Sea ports and then transship the supplies to ports in Ukraine.

This preconditions at least two things: That the Germans can utilsie 1942 to gain control over the MEd. and 2. That they reach the Black Sea at all.

Ad. 1.
A huge army is not much worth in the Med. and we need a lot of butterflies to wear the RN enough down to have the Axis control the (eastern) Med. enough to send large scale supplies on that route. Axis merchant tonnage in the Med. anyway was scarce. The best option would be some kind of peace agreement with the British Empire in 1941, after that I'm sure the Turks wouldn't be the problem.

Ad. 2. But even if we somehow can arrange a route through the Med. and Black Sea, we also need the Axis to secure a good harbour on the Black Sea coast. Odessa is still too far away from strategic objectives to make a difference, as is Sevastopol. Rostov-Na-Donu indeed has a fine position, but in OTL it took a year to get that far for the Wehrmacht. IMHO the war is decided at Moscow, if the Wehrmacht can take and hold Moscow in the first campaign season, the Soviets will have severe difficulties in rebuilding and redeploying for the next season. That requires logistic improvements in central Russia (railway), but in this ATL I doubt the Wehrmacht will get that far.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Slamet]

Nope. Germans did know about these types IOTL, but largerly dismissed them, and not entirely without reason.
Everybody knows now that T-34 was revolutionary design, and that it worked. But back then it wasn't anything combat-proven, and Germans did face some pretty heavily armored tanks during French campaign without much trouble.

Of course, T-34 had more powerful engine and much more of a gun (and the way Kotin managed to cram all this into mass-producible design was that revolution) but I just can see how German generals might dismiss T-34 as "yet another overarmored design, just like French used to have."

Of course, you could always have the scenario where somebody actually defects across the border... The Germans could then test the T-34 and who knows? Maybe the Panther mk. 2 will be able to cram the 75mm KwK 42 L70 into an easier chassis to mass produce.

 

[Slamet]

This would have led to more Soviets been surrounded.
What was needed was a mobile defence.

The Stalin Line :
1) Had a depth of 30-50 km
2) Wasn't so vulnerable to flanking, as the ends were in the Baltic and in the Black Sea
3) Built deep inside Soviet territory, less probing eyes and had a buffer security zone to weaken the enemy first
4) Was actually built to defend against armored attacks
5) Correct if I'm Wrong; Had gaps in it to allow the enemy to go through these gaps, then the Soviet armored groups could cut them off. Or could put minefields in them.
6) Was built with encirclement in mind; those defence points could fight on long after isolation (tunnels etc.)

That and the fact that by 1942, IF Stalin had kept the line, he could've expanded the line to become a defence-in-depth line like in Kursk, made more lines stretching until the Dneipr if he wanted, had more AT-guns in stock, had more T-34s and KV-1s for armored counterattacks.

@Redbeard
Have you got any book recommendations about the Soviet Army in the 1930s?

 

[Redbeard]

@Redbeard
Have you got any book recommendations about the Soviet Army in the 1930s?

David Glantz' books on the Red Army IMHO are well written, well researched and with many new and interesting facts and points, not at least through the now (more) open Soviet archives. Glantz also apear to be relatively free of "agendas" apart from finding the truth.

I don't know of Glantz (yet) having made a book on the 30s as a whole, but "Stumbling Collossus" about the army lost in 1941 is an excellent insight into the Soviet Military before Babarossa. As a supplement Karl Heinz Frieser's book on the Wehrmacht "Blitzkrieg Legend" is good, as it very well describes how ill-prepared, but lucky, the Wehrmacht was for the various campaigns.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard