WI: Operation Barbarossa without North African campaign?

If in 1941 the Reich never got involved in North Africa and had far more resources, aircraft and vehicles available for Operation Barbarossa, how would this affect the campaign and could this be enough of a POD to allow them to defeat the Soviets or at least inflict more losses than OTL?
 
Without help, the Italians will get destroyed by Britain in North Africa. By Sept 1940 nearly the entire Italian army in North Africa had surrendered, with over 130,000 troops captured. Mussolini called Hitler for assistance, with the Afrika Korp arriving in Feb 1941. Had Hitler refused, Wavell would have pushed into Libya and destroyed all Italian forces in North Africa. With the Middle East and the southern shore of the Mediterranean safe, Britain would be in a position to support Greece (though still a bad move) or even threaten Sicily (only in name, still can't move until the USA is in the war).. Without Luftwaffe support, the Royal Navy is mostly safe in the Mediterranean, while a second Taranto raid would likely wipe out the Italian navy. Even if none of this second stage stuff happens, the defeat and capture of Libya and all Italian forces in North Africa will likely mean Mussolini is arrested and replaced.

So, by ignore the North African campaign, Hitler may have more kit for attacking Russia and the ability to likely do it sooner and thus have better odds of avoiding the Russian winter of 1941/42, but Britain has the Middle East and all of North Africa. The below map shows the British-Soviet line of division in Iran. There are already railways from Iraq to the Russian-Iran border, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Iranian_Railway.

95DC3541.jpg


So, since the Middle East and North Africa is safe, British reinforcements or supplies can be sent into southern Russia. Of course we can ask what reinforcements could Britain afford to send. With the Ural oilfields not coming under threat until 1942, British oil from Iraq or Kuwait isn't needed. But the Germans will still perceive the threat to their southern flank.
 
Last edited:
What is the cost of the Brits kicking out the Italians manpower wise? It doesn't do much to really effect the Germans does it just means USA forces don't get involved sooner until what? DDay? What front is there for them?
 
With Libya firmly in British hands, the Allies can try a late 1942 invasion against Sicily and Sardinia, and/or invasion of Normandy in 1943.
 
If in 1941 the Reich never got involved in North Africa and had far more resources, aircraft and vehicles available for Operation Barbarossa, how would this affect the campaign and could this be enough of a POD to allow them to defeat the Soviets or at least inflict more losses than OTL?

Assuming North Africa is cleared in early 1941 by the British, the British will spared significant naval casualties and land losses. This means Singapore is probably safe, and the Royal Navy can be more proactive at supporting raids, convoys or landings. Crete is probably retained, but I think that a Greece campaign would still turn out badly for the Allies.

Russian convoys are more easily escorted, and there is more available to put in them, this makes lend lease more effective. Thus Germany still ends up fighting British tanks and planes, just with Russian crews.

German manpower requirements involve efforts to protect Southern Europe from British raids, probably requiring troop (if not vehicle) commitments fairly similar to that sent to North Africa.

I think it may work out fairly similarly with more resources on both sides committed to the Russian theatre. The main winner is probably the UK in this scenario with fewer losses to its forces.
 

nbcman

Donor
Wrapping up the North African campaign would more than likely eliminate the Iraqi revolt which would also eliminate the Syria-Lebanon campaign. Additionally, the Club Runs to Malta would be unnecessary without the need to run fighters to Malta via carriers when they could be flown from Tripoli to Malta instead-which would mean USS Wasp could be available for the Battle of Midway.
 

Deleted member 1487

If in 1941 the Reich never got involved in North Africa and had far more resources, aircraft and vehicles available for Operation Barbarossa, how would this affect the campaign and could this be enough of a POD to allow them to defeat the Soviets or at least inflict more losses than OTL?
Why don't the Germans get involved in Africa? Italy neutral or stops Operation Compass cold?
That will generally matter, though not for Barbarossa. So to be clear the Balkans and Greek campaign still have happened, right?

If that is the case and just Rommel's corps plus support his available (I'm assuming X. Fliegerkorps is still in the Mediterranean/split with Barbarossa a bit as per OTL), that's not much of a change. It really comes down to if Rommel's corps is even formed. IOTL his troops were split off of existing divisions. Perhaps that means two more Panzer divisions for Barbarossa, maybe it just means more equipment and men for the other 20 Panzer divisions used for Barbarossa. If the latter then no major changes really, if the former, then it depends where and how they are used. Say if Rommel's two divisions are added to AG-North then you might get some interesting butterflies. For one thing you could have support for the 18th army's effort to move on Riga quickly in June; IOTL they put all their mobile elements together and tried to beat the retreating Soviet 8th army to Riga, but realized retreating Soviet forces were too strong for them to handle with their limited force, so slowed down to let the infantry catch up, which let the Soviet 8th army slip away and go on to hold in Estonia and fight near Leningrad quite effectively.

Had say Rommel had his own corps with two Panzer divisions that could support that move they could have cut off the bulk of the retreating 8th army at Riga and wiped them out, which would then have opened up Estonia for a rapid advance by Rommel's corps and the 18th army, while the rest of 4th Panzer army did it's historical job. That opens up huge opportunities that did not exist IOTL and probably results in Leningrad falling in August-September. Of course there is no guarantee that is how those forces will be used, 15th Panzer could just end up part of von Manstein's corps, 5 Light, if it even exists ITTL, could be part of a Panzer army reserve or another corps, and Rommel stuck as 7th Panzer's commander. So it is very hard to say for sure and it is up to you to say how those forces could/would be used in a TL.
 
What will the Vichy French do? Would the French colonials in North Africa jump ship when Libya falls and join the British? If they do then the Germans occupy the rest of France a year earlier. As far as Italy I think if Mussolini is on the verge of being overthrown then the Germans will occupy Italy. You could get an interesting scenario where Italy collapses into Civil War. Italian troops resist a German "intervention". Britain helps the anti fascist forces in Italy.
 
If in 1941 the Reich never got involved in North Africa and had far more resources, aircraft and vehicles available for Operation Barbarossa, how would this affect the campaign and could this be enough of a POD to allow them to defeat the Soviets or at least inflict more losses than OTL?
Do the Germans not get involved in North Africa because the Italians manage to hold Cyrencia or Hitler decides that sending help to Mussolini is not worth it?

In both cases does it mean that X. Fligerkorps is not sent to Sicily? Because if it isn't it would probably remain in the West and be used to attack British shipping there.
 
It seems like the Italians need at least some German 88s and a few Mark III tanks to hold in Libya for a while. Otherwise expanded Lend Lease from an early British victory might be enough to offset the small German gain in strength (assuming the extra Germans can be supplied in the Soviet Union). (If Greece is still Allied controlled in this TL, then non lethal stuff lend lease aid could be sent through the Black Sea through Turkey.)

Best case scenario for Germany:
a) Italians don't invade Greece
b) Italians are able then to send just a little extra supply and a few more mobile forces and air into Egypt.
c) Before the British OTL attack the Italians send a smallish mobile column toward Matruh.
d) This is of course cut to pieces by the British.
e) The Italians evacuate their static infantry from Egypt to the Libyan frontier.
f) The British, content Egypt is safe, withdraw 4th Indian division to East Africa (as like OTL) but Operation Compass never happens like OTL.
g) The British then leisurely prepare for a major North African offensive starting April (perhaps taking time to extend railway from Matruh) and finishing out East Africa in the meantime.
h) The Germans send a single Panzer division block force and the OTL contingent of 88s. (with a defensive minded general who can work well with the Italians).
i) Extra Italian forces are available without Greece (early M1340s etc.).
j) The small/German large Italian blocking force hold the Libyan frontier with its natural defenses indefinitely.
h) Instead of raiding the Germans put Bismark and Prinz Eugen in Alta, Norway as a fleet in being (this makes enlarged Lend Lease impracticle)

The 1 extra Panzer division, and other forces not needed in the Balkans are available for Barbarossa. Barbarossa happens June 15th, (spring mud, and other logistical and preparation issues delay offensive until then anyway). Crete doesn't happen here so lots of Ju52s are available, perhaps these help keep supplied the larger force.

Lets assume the extra forces are used in the north, where the better air strip facilities of the Baltic countries, allow for the extra forces to be supplied. Leningrad falls in August/ early September (Zhukov killed), the extra forces sent to support Typhoon, Stalin and what ever general he puts in charge now that Zhukov is dead is a more dysfunctional relationship, slightly better German performance, one more week of good weather results in panic, Moscow abandoned. Follow up operations in 1942 secure Stalingrad and Grozny. Soviet front then settles into a stalemate on the Don/Volga with neither side strong enough to advance.
 

Deleted member 1487

Lets assume the extra forces are used in the north, where the better air strip facilities of the Baltic countries, allow for the extra forces to be supplied. Leningrad falls in August/ early September (Zhukov killed), the extra forces sent to support Typhoon, Stalin and what ever general he puts in charge now that Zhukov is dead is a more dysfunctional relationship, slightly better German performance, one more week of good weather results in panic, Moscow abandoned. Follow up operations in 1942 secure Stalingrad and Grozny. Soviet front then settles into a stalemate on the Don/Volga with neither side strong enough to advance.
How would Zhukov get killed? If the city falls in August or early September we wouldn't even be there and probably wouldn't ever even show up, while Voroshilov would probably be able to get out before the city falls (not that he'd want to face Stalin after that).
 
How would Zhukov get killed? If the city falls in August or early September we wouldn't even be there and probably wouldn't ever even show up, while Voroshilov would probably be able to get out before the city falls (not that he'd want to face Stalin after that).

I was figuring if the cities encirclement comes earlier that Stalin will be messing with the leadership earlier putting Zhukov in charge earlier than OTL. The general best case German scenario thought is with accelerated German success that Stalin become more dysfunctional pushing things to a tipping point. (Moscow seems unlikely to fall without some political crisis or panic so a best case German scenario has to assume that is happening)
 

Deleted member 1487

I was figuring if the cities encirclement comes earlier that Stalin will be messing with the leadership earlier putting Zhukov in charge earlier than OTL. The general best case German scenario thought is with accelerated German success that Stalin become more dysfunctional pushing things to a tipping point. (Moscow seems unlikely to fall without some political crisis or panic so a best case German scenario has to assume that is happening)
It happened so rapidly that Zhukov really didn't show up until after the specific danger had passed, but quickly enough to prevent Voroshilov from panicking and carrying out the orders to scuttle the fleet and demo the city. Zhukov at that point was engaged in the fighting around Smolensk, so might be hard to pull him out given that when he was pulled out IOTL the fighting had pretty much wrapped up. Even if he were put in charge, he'd likely be able to get out quickly if there was a problem or not even go into the city pocket at all, just command from the outside like near Volkhov city.
Leningrad falling would cause the Soviet MAJOR problems and would cause Stalin to freak out badly. You don't lose the home of the revolution with all of it's industry, millions of people, the Baltic Fleet, all the weapons and supplies that were there, and let the Axis free up manpower for a move against Murmansk without serious consequences. The Germans would have more troops to use for a Moscow push/guard the flanks, while creating massive problems for Stalin psychologically, materially, and politically. Reserves wouldn't be as available to move to Moscow for December-January either. Regardless there would be major butterflies even if things go better for the Brits due to no Germans in the Mediterranean.
 
Not much. Much of the talk of Leningrad falling is predicated on the wishful thinking that a minor addition of forces can overcome a crippling failure in planning on a number of operational-strategic principles, but the reality is that given those failings an entire army group wouldn't be enough to capture Leningrad with a significant degree of certainty. Shuffling around Hail Mary Plays isn't how the Germans are going to achieve their military objectives.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not much. Much of the talk of Leningrad falling is predicated on the wishful thinking that a minor addition of forces can overcome a crippling failure in planning on a number of operational-strategic principles, but the reality is that given those failings an entire army group wouldn't be enough to capture Leningrad with a significant degree of certainty. Shuffling around Hail Mary Plays isn't how the Germans are going to achieve their military objectives.
It was a very close run thing IOTL in August-September; having looked at it extensively having an extra mobile corps would have actually made a huge difference depending on how it was used. This wasn't a matter of abstract 'operational-strategic principles' but actual details in the historical combat record where it is clear that the addition of the extra corps plus the Afrika Korps' logistical elements would have actually made a substantial difference. That said there is no guarantee that said forces would be used in the way that would have resulted it this change, they could very well have been squandered so that they only made a tactical difference in areas where that would not have resulted in a operational change with knock on strategic impacts.
 
It was a very close run thing IOTL in August-September; having looked at it extensively having an extra mobile corps would have actually made a huge difference depending on how it was used. This wasn't a matter of abstract 'operational-strategic principles' but actual details in the historical combat record where it is clear that the addition of the extra corps plus the Afrika Korps' logistical elements would have actually made a substantial difference. That said there is no guarantee that said forces would be used in the way that would have resulted it this change, they could very well have been squandered so that they only made a tactical difference in areas where that would not have resulted in a operational change with knock on strategic impacts.

The ability of the roads to handle the traffic, the difficulty of maeneuvering and fighting through the terrain on the approaches, and the failure of the Germans to detect Soviet reserves and predict the mobilization of new Soviet forces and therefore fail to plan for having to actually fight for Leningrad are not at all abstract. They were very real issues that historically derailed German attempts. They are also not something that can be solved by just throwing the Afrika Korps at it.
 

Deleted member 1487

The ability of the roads to handle the traffic, the difficulty of maeneuvering and fighting through the terrain on the approaches, and the failure of the Germans to detect Soviet reserves and predict the mobilization of new Soviet forces and therefore fail to plan for having to actually fight for Leningrad are not at all abstract. They were very real issues that historically derailed German attempts. They are also not something that can be solved by just throwing the Afrika Korps at it.
Again depends on how they are used; sending the traffic via Estonia through Narwa would use all the unused roads that could handle the traffic. If they sent them with the rest of 4th Panzer Army east of Estonia then yes it would make a mess of those roads. Same with just adding individual divisions to other corps and loading them up. They can be used tactically, but wouldn't have a major operational impact. You'd need a 3rd corps acting somewhat independent of the rest of the Panzer Group to get the operational-strategic impact in AG-North. Now toss them in with AG-Center and you could potentially get some operational impact too (thinking 22nd army at Nevel or 13th army near Mogilyev or potentially even closing the Smolensk pocket), but with AG-South it would be a total drop in the bucket.
With a Rommel corps push through Estonia the roads are basically unused and depending on what happens with the Soviet 8th army south of Riga it can be overrun much more quickly in the rush to Narwa. From Narwa, using Estonian roads for supply, Rommel's corps in concert with Rheinhart's could bounce the Luga River line before it gets set up and alter the entire character of the campaign in July. Then the historical Afrika Korps' supply elements would come in major handy. Of course there is hardly a guarantee that is how Rommel's corps, if even formed ITTL, would be used. If it were, then it clears Estonia a month early, the Soviet 8th army is pretty much smashed and doesn't contribute to the defense of Leningrad, Estonia can be used as a supply base via the ports in August or maybe even late July, and the additional forces and supply elements can make the rush for Leningrad successful in August-September. The stacking tactical-operational successes have knock on strategic impacts that the structural issues with Barbarossa don't really negatively impact.
 
Leningrad falling would cause the Soviet MAJOR problems and would cause Stalin to freak out badly. You don't lose the home of the revolution with all of it's industry, millions of people, the Baltic Fleet, all the weapons and supplies that were there, and let the Axis free up manpower for a move against Murmansk without serious consequences.
What are the consequences of Murmansk falling?
 

Deleted member 1487

What are the consequences of Murmansk falling?
Depends when in 1942, but could mean as much as 20% of LL in 1942 is cut off. Plus it frees up the Finns to do other stuff (including demobilizing forces so the Germans don't need to provide them with a bunch of material) and frees up multiple German divisions and aircraft. Having the Northern Front shut down would be a huge boon to the Germans and would eliminate probably 250k Soviet soldiers from the roles. That's on top of the 1 million or so Soviet warfighters that would have been lost in and around Leningrad.
 
Top